Court Opinion

ID: 9448724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:43:27.881973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:32.116629
License: Public Domain

SIMPSON, District Judge
(concurring in the result).
I reach a different view than the majority as to the holding of this Court in United States v. Gavagan, 280 F.2d 319. I understand the opinion here to hold that Gavagan adopts the Good Samaritan doctrine as the standard required to establish liability of the government, and that hence a finding of “worsening” as an indispensable element of that doctrine is required to support a finding of liability.
I do not understand the Gavagan holding as adopting the Good Samaritan doctrine. Rather, at page 328, after adopting a standard of reasonable care, and saying “In this respect it is virtually the same as Indian Towing,” and quoting from that case, 350 U.S. 61, at page 69, 76 S.Ct. 122, at page 328, the opinion continues:
“In addition we are also of the opinion that the facts fully meet the requirements of the Good Samaritan doctrine,” (emphasis supplied)
and points out why including the evidence in the record as to “worsening”.
Judge Brown is thus saying for the Court, not that Good Samaritan is the standard, but only that even if it is the standard (as contended by government counsel, both there and here) the evidence in Gavagan meets that test.
*188The net effect of the majority opinion seems to me therefore, to be to overrule, rather than to follow Gavagan. With deference to the majority view, I think we should be bound by its precedent,
T j- n -4.-U 4.1, • -4. 4.1...4- 4-1. I agree fully with the majority that the , ,, , , , , , ■ , case should be returned to the District n 4. . , ,, „ ,. ... .. Court for further findings with respect to contributory negligence. For this reason, I concur in the result.