United States v. Gilman (347 U.S. 507)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 17, 1954 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 347 U.S. 507 · 74 S. Ct. 695
- Docket
- No. 449
- Argued
- March 10, 1954
- Decided
- May 17, 1954
- Term
- October Term 1953
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Douglas
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black, Justice Reed, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Burton, Justice Clark, Justice Minton
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The single question in the case is whether the United States may recover indemnity from one of its employees after it has been held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 60 Stat. 842, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., for the negligence of the employee. Respondent, an employee of the United States, had a collision with the car of one Darnell, while respondent was driving a government automobile. Darnell sued the United States under the Tort Claims Act. The United States filed a third-party complaint against respondent, asking that if it should be held liable to Darnell, it have indemnity from respondent. The District Court found that Darnell’s injuries were caused solely by the negligence of respondent, acting within the scope of his employment. It entered judgment against the United States for $5,500 and judgment over for the United States in the same amount. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against respondent by a divided vote. 206 F. 2d 846. The case is here on writ of certiorari. 346 U. S. 914. Petitioner’s argument is that the right of indemnity, though not expressly granted by the Tort Claims Act, is to be implied. A private employer, it is said, has a common-law right of indemnity against an employee whose negligence has made the employer liable. The Tort Claims Act, by imposing liability on the…
Excerpt of a 12,623-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.