Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
E.D. Pennsylvania· 4/19/1978

Blessing v. United States

Citations

  • 447 F. Supp. 1160

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that liability attaches only when defendant charged with negligent inspection undertakes to inspect the specific device causing the injury or the entire physical plant, of which the specific device is a part
  • recognizing that liability attaches only when defendant charged with negligent inspection undertakes to inspect the specific device causing the injury or the entire physical plant, of which the specific device is a part
  • stating that the discretionary function exception should apply only if the official who made a challenged decision had the authority to make that decision
  • stating that the discretionary function exception should apply only if the official who made a challenged decision had the authority to make that decision
  • explaining that “physical harm is proximately caused by negligent performance of an undertaking” if §324A(a), (b), or (c) is satisfied
  • noting that Pennsylvania recognizes the so-called “good Samaritan rule”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Edward R. Becker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

131 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

173 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Blessing v. United States

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.