J. Carl Beason and Vesta G. Barnett v. United States

396 F.2d 2, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6699
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 31, 1968
Docket25237_1
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 396 F.2d 2 (J. Carl Beason and Vesta G. Barnett v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J. Carl Beason and Vesta G. Barnett v. United States, 396 F.2d 2, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6699 (5th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit. Appellants, employees of an independent contractor doing construction work for the United States, fell and were injured when rigging, owned by the contractor, being used to hoist a hangar door into place broke, causing the door to fall through the scaffolding on which appellants were working. Appellants urge that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment because there were material facts in dispute concerning whether or not the United States negligently breached its duty to maintain safety standards thus causing appellants’ injuries. We affirm.

It affirmatively appears that the provisions of the contract between the United States and the independent contractor upon which appellants rely did not, by their terms, impose a duty on the United States to maintain safe working conditions and “where the only Governmental undertaking relied upon is a safety inspection program in connection with work being performed by an independent contractor,” no liability under the Good Samaritan Doctrine for negligent performance of the contract by the independent contractor can attach to the United States. Roberson v. United States, 9 Cir. 1967, 382 F.2d 714, 721-722. The United States was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. United States
661 F. Supp. 762 (W.D. Texas, 1987)
Schwab v. United States
649 F. Supp. 1319 (M.D. Florida, 1986)
Johnston v. United States
461 F. Supp. 991 (N.D. Florida, 1978)
Musgrave v. Tennessee Valley Authority
391 F. Supp. 1330 (N.D. Alabama, 1975)
McGarry v. United States
370 F. Supp. 525 (D. Nevada, 1973)
Kropp v. Douglas Aircraft Co.
329 F. Supp. 447 (E.D. New York, 1971)
Lemley v. United States
317 F. Supp. 350 (N.D. West Virginia, 1970)
Market Insurance v. United States
415 F.2d 459 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Market Insurance Company v. United States
415 F.2d 459 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Hodge v. United States
310 F. Supp. 1090 (M.D. Georgia, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 F.2d 2, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-carl-beason-and-vesta-g-barnett-v-united-states-ca5-1968.