469 F.2d 95 - Andreotti v. United States — 469 F.2d 95

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1991

8 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *96Thomas R. Davis, of Di Giorgio, Davis, Hastin & Klein, Bakersfield, Cal., for plaintiff and appellant.

¶2D. Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., L. Patrick Gray, III, Ass’t U. S. Atty., Fresno, Cal., Walter H. Fleischer, Raymond D. Battocchi, Washington, D. C., for defendant and respondent.

¶3Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The judgment in favor of the United States in this Federal Tort Claims ease is affirmed.

¶6The finding that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the negligence of an independent contractor performing services (unsupervised as to details) for the government is not clearly erroneous. Actually, the finding, on the record, seems inescapable.

¶7Under California law (and the injury occurred in a California post office) the negligence might be imputed to the landowner. But in our view, the permission to sue the United States granted by the Tort Claims Act does not go far enough to cover imputed negligence. United States v. Trubow, 214 F.2d 192 (9 Cir. 1955); United States v. Dooley, 231 F.2d 423 (9 Cir. 1955).