United States v. Nielson
United States Supreme Court
349 U.S. 129, 75 S.Ct. 654, 99 L.Ed. 939, 1955 AMC 935 (1955)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Nielson (plaintiff), doing business as Dauntless Towing Line (Dauntless), entered into a contract with the United States (defendant) to provide towing services to assist in moving the United States vessel Christopher Gale from Hoboken, New Jersey, to a pier in Brooklyn. The contract between Dauntless and the United States stipulated that Dauntless would not be held liable for any damages for injuries that might be caused by the negligence of Dauntless’s employees and also provided that any Dauntless employee working on the Gale would be considered a servant of the United States as the vessel owner. As the Gale was underway, piloted by a Dauntless captain and attached by lines to two Dauntless tugs, one of the tugs was crushed between the Gale and the pier as a result of the pilot’s negligence. Dauntless sued the United States under admiralty law to recover damages for the injury to its tug, which was caused by the negligence of its own employee, under a theory that the pilot was acting as a servant of the United States at the time. The district court held that pilot’s negligence had caused the accident and ordered the United States to pay Dauntless for those damages. The court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.