Frank v. United States
250 F.2d 178 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The United States government, when acting as a volunteer rescuer through an agency like the Coast Guard, is not liable for a failed rescue attempt unless its actions worsened the victim's position or the victim detrimentally relied on its promise of aid.
Facts:
- Daniel Frank was a passenger on a thirty-foot cabin cruiser during a fishing expedition off the New Jersey coast.
- The cruiser's engine failed, and it anchored less than four hundred yards from shore in rough seas with high winds.
- A U.S. Coast Guard motor lifeboat was dispatched and took the disabled cruiser in tow.
- While being towed, Frank attempted to walk on the deck of the cruiser, but the boat heeled, a handrail broke, and he fell into the sea.
- The Coast Guard crew immediately cut the tow line and attempted to rescue Frank from the water.
- The rescue effort was unsuccessful, and Frank drowned before the crew could reach him.
- Appellant alleged the Coast Guard lifeboat had a defective reverse gear, improperly secured life rings, and an insufficient crew, which delayed the rescue.
- The Coast Guard's actions did not cause Frank to fall into the sea, nor did they worsen his plight once he was in the water.
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of Daniel Frank's estate filed a libel (a suit in admiralty) against the United States in a federal district court.
- The district court entered a judgment for the United States, finding that the plaintiff had not proven that the alleged faults of the Coast Guard caused the rescue to fail.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government become liable for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a failed rescue attempt when its actions did not cause the victim's initial peril and did not worsen the victim's condition, but merely proved ineffectual?
Opinions:
Majority - Hastie, Circuit Judge
No. The government is not liable for a failed rescue attempt under these circumstances. The responsibility of the Coast Guard in a voluntary rescue operation rises no higher than that of a private salvor. A private volunteer rescuer is not liable for an ineffectual rescue effort unless their actions affirmatively injure the person in distress or worsen their position. Here, the Coast Guard did not cause Frank to fall overboard, nor did their rescue attempt make his situation worse than it already was. The alleged negligence—defective equipment and insufficient manning—only meant that a diligent rescue effort proved unsuccessful, which does not create liability.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant limitation on government liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act for rescue operations. It firmly aligns the government's duty with the common law principle for private volunteer rescuers, often known as the 'Good Samaritan' rule. The ruling creates a clear distinction between nonfeasance (failing to successfully rescue) and misfeasance (making the situation worse), holding that the government is only liable for the latter. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims against agencies like the Coast Guard, as they must prove the government's actions caused affirmative harm beyond the initial peril.
