danger involved and of the proper precautions that should be
9. That plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his
own safety and was therefore contributorily negligent.
10. The proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff's own
failure to exercise reasonable care for his safety at the time
and place in question, and such failure amounted to negligence on
his part which bars any claim for recovery of damages for his
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject
matter of this suit.
2. In order to hold the defendant, United States of America,
liable for plaintiff's injuries under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), plaintiff is required to prove some act
of misfeasance or non-feasance of a Government employee acting
within the scope of his office or employment under such
circumstances that the United States, if a private citizen, would
be liable under Illinois law.
3. The United States was under no duty to warn plaintiff of
obvious dangers involved and of standard safe practices of his
4. The United States, as a seller of scrap to a scrap dealer,
is under no duty to warn persons handling said scrap unless there
is some reason to suppose that a warning is necessary.
5. The United States, as a seller of scrap, is not bound to
anticipate or reasonably foresee a danger occasioned by an
extraordinary use of the article or the misuse of such article by
a careless or incompetent person.
6. The court concludes as a matter of law that the United
States was not guilty of any negligence which proximately caused
the plaintiff's injury.
7. To establish liability for personal injuries against the
United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, plaintiff must
prove a negligent act or omission by a Government employee and
cannot base liability on a theory that has its origin in
warranties, product liability, or absolute liability. Dalehite v.
United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953);
United States v. Page, 350 F.2d 28, (C.A.10, 1965).
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.