Lacey v. United States
98 F. Supp. 219 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a negligent failure to rescue. The 'Good Samaritan' doctrine does not apply unless the government's rescue attempt worsens the victim's position by causing other potential rescuers to cease their efforts or otherwise depriving the victim of other available aid.
Facts:
- A pilot's plane fell into the waters of Massachusetts Bay.
- The pilot was in distress in the water following the crash.
- The United States Coast Guard undertook a rescue operation to save the pilot.
- The Coast Guard's rescue attempt was allegedly negligent and failed to save the pilot before he died.
- There was no allegation that the Coast Guard's rescue operation induced other would-be rescuers to cease their efforts or otherwise deprived the decedent of other available help.
Procedural Posture:
- In one action (No. 50-464), the administrator of a deceased pilot's estate sued the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- In related actions, an original defendant, Van Arsdale, was permitted to file a third-party complaint against the United States.
- The United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the first action.
- The United States also filed a motion to vacate the order allowing the third-party complaint in the other actions.
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 United States Coast Guard's undertaking of a rescue operation, which ultimately fails, create tort liability under the 'Good Samaritan' doctrine if the attempt did not worsen the victim's position or deter other potential rescuers?
Opinions:
Majority - Sweeney, Chief Judge
No. A tort liability is not created under these circumstances. The common law does not impose a duty to rescue on a mere bystander. While the statute creating the Coast Guard charges it with saving lives at sea, it does not create a private civil right to be rescued or impose tort liability for a negligent failure to do so. The 'Good Samaritan' doctrine, which imposes a duty of due care on one who undertakes a rescue, applies only when the rescuer's actions worsen the victim's situation. This typically occurs when other potential rescuers are induced to 'rest on their oars' in the belief that an effective rescue is underway. Because the complaint did not allege that the Coast Guard's actions deprived the decedent of other aid or caused other rescuers to stand down, the Good Samaritan doctrine does not apply and the government is not liable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow scope of government liability for quasi-governmental functions like search and rescue. It establishes that simply undertaking a rescue is insufficient to trigger the Good Samaritan rule against the government. To create liability, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the government's intervention was not merely negligent but also affirmatively worsened the victim's situation by causing detrimental reliance, most notably by deterring other potential rescuers. This ruling sets a high bar for plaintiffs in such cases and protects government agencies from tort liability for good-faith, albeit unsuccessful, rescue attempts.
Unlock the full brief for Lacey v. United States