Court Opinion

ID: 9464767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:41:56.467872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:48.269611
License: Public Domain

CASTLE, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority states that they “can conceive of no reason for holding the Adams rule inapplicable if the waters have ever been used for commercial maritime activity and were accordingly once federally regulated.” (page 151.) This broad rule permits the government to withdraw unilaterally and with impunity its supervision over dangerous objects which were placed in a waterway while those waters were “commercial” and under federal control. In this suit against the United States, the panel properly distinguished the Adams case and denied the federal government the jurisdictional shield it has now obtained. 541 F.2d at 646. Regarding the liability issue, I remain convinced that the United States owed a duty to persons using the Kankakee River to mark the dam for the reasons stated in the revised opinion of the original panel. I respectfully dissent.