Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
J. Carl Beason and Vesta G. Barnett, Appellants, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 396 F.2d 2
May 31, 1968
Hollis C. Thompson, Jr., Gulfport, Miss., Wm. B. Baggett, Lake Charles, La., Sydney B. Nelson, Shreveport, La., Mize, Thompson & Mize, Gulfport, Miss., Pugh & Nelson, Shreveport, La., Long, Strong, Jackson & Strong, Carthage, Tex., Baggett, Hawsey & McClain, Lake Charles, La., for appellants.
Robert E. Hauberg, U.S. Atty., Joseph E. Brown, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Edwin R. Holmes, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., for Appellee United States.
Before TUTTLE and DYER, Circuit Judges, and MEHRTENS, District Judge.
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 whicn 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.