Court Opinion

ID: 9444641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:07:31.689982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:56.918861
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In this common law action plaintiff's employment by defendants has no legal significance. Plaintiff is suing upon a contract with defendants under which it is admitted that, in consideration of $40.25 per week paid by plaintiff to defendants, defendants agreed to furnish plaintiff his room and board, laundry, and medical and dental care. The weekly payments were in the form of deductions made by defendants from plaintiff’s salary. It is alleged that plaintiff, needing the services of a dentist, was sent by the defendants to one Dr. C. L. Alein, a dentist carelessly and negligently hired by defendants, and that, as a proximate result of negligent treatment by Dr. Alein, who lacked sufficient skill and knowledge in the premises, plaintiff suffered serious permanent injuries.
Plaintiff’s complaint in the district court makes no reference to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901.
It needs no citation of authorities to demonstrate that where, by contractual relation for a valuable consideration, defendants undertook to supply a dentist for plaintiff, they were under a legal obligation to use due care in making the selection. If the allegations of the complaint setting forth the above facts can be proved by plaintiff, he is entitled to a judgment against defendants. He has not had an opportunity to prove his case, because the district court dismissed his complaint upon motion of defendants who there contended that plaintiff’s rights existed solely by virtue of said act, which, by the Defense Bases Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1651 et sequitur, was made applicable to employees working at defense bases. It also appears that, when plaintiff had attempted to seek relief under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act, these same defendants appeared before a deputy commissioner engaged in the administration of that act and convinced him that said act did not apply .because the above mentioned occurrences, with said resulting injuries to plaintiff, “did not arise out of and in the course of employment.”
Plaintiff then filed this suit.
I would hold that he has a right to enforce his valid contract with the defendants for the furnishing to him of competent dental services. To deny one party to that contract the right to enforce it simply because he was, in an independent relationship, an employee of the other party to the contract, is a non sequitur. It would be as. if, when A meets B on a street in front of a church, and enters into a valid contract with B, he is deprived of a right to enforce the contract because of certain teachings or tenets of the nearby church congregation.
*195In none of the cases cited by defendants 1 was there an express contract governing the rights of the parties, such as we have in this case. They therefore have no application here.
I would reverse and permit plaintiff to recover on the contract for which he paid a valuable consideration.

. O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific Maxon Co., 340 U.S 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483; Hastorf-Nettles, Inc., v. Pillsbury, 9 Cir., 203 F.2d 641; State ex rel. Haddock Engineers v. Swope, 56 N.M. 782, 251 P.2d 266; McWilliams Dredging Co. v. Henderson, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 361; Hurley v. Lowe, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 168 F.2d 553; Cardillo v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 71 App.D.C. 330, 109 F.2d 674; and London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Britton, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 138 F.2d 932.