# P. Dougherty Co. v. United States. P. Dougherty Co. v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 30, 1953 · 207 F.2d 626

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9443939

## Case

- **Full name:** P. Dougherty Co. v. United States; P. Dougherty Co. v. United States
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 30, 1953
- **Citations:** 207 F.2d 626
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Goodrich
- **Judges:** Kalodner, Biggs, Goodrich, Staley, Maris, McLaughlin, Hastie
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9443939

## Opinion text

GOODRICH, Justice (dissenting).
I agree with the dissent of Chief Judge Biggs, and add a few words only to emphasize what is said in the quotation from Glanzer v. Shepard. Dean Ames, writing in 2 Harv.L.Rev. 1, on “The History of Assumpsit” pointed out on page 2;
“The earliest cases in which an assumpsit was laid in the declaration were cases against a ferryman who undertook to carry the plaintiff’s horse over the river, but who overloaded the boat, whereby the horse was drowned; * * * against surgeons who undertook to cure the plaintiff or his animals, but who administered contrary medicines or otherwise unskilfully treated their patient; * * * against a smith for laming a horse while shoeing it; * * * against a barber who undertook to shave the beard of the plaintiff with a clean and wholesome razor, but who performed his work negligently and un-skilfully to the great injury of the plaintiff’s face; * * * against a carpenter who undertook to build well and faithfully, but who built unskilfully. * * *”
“And in those cases,” the dean ■ stated, “consideration has * * *- never played any part in the declaration.”
In other words, one who carelessly hurts the person or property of another is liable, whether he was rendering his service for pay or for nothing. With a statute making the United States, with specified exceptions, liable as any individual defendant would be, the application of the general rule seems pretty clear in this case. And the United States need have no more fear of consequences than anyone else.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9443939. Public record. Not legal advice.