F. H. Harries and Aileen Harries, His Wife v. United States

Good Law
350 F.2d 231·1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4609
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 196519345_1California2,896 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hamley, J.

In this action against the United States, F. H. Harries and his wife seek damages for loss sustained when Harries contracted encephalitis following a border smallpox vaccination administered by employees of the United States. Plaintiffs predicated liability on the asserted failure of border officials to advise Harries that the vaccination might cause him to contract encephalitis and that, instead of submitting to vaccination, he could have insisted upon the alternatives of isolation or surveillance. Plaintiffs also alleged in their complaint that the United States breached an implied warranty that the vaccination would not cause Harries to contract encephalitis.

District court jurisdiction was asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b), 2671-2680 (1964). The Government denied essential allegations of the complaint and advanced several affirmative defenses. The case was tried to the court without a jury. Judgment was entered for the United States and plaintiffs appeal.

The judgment for defendant was based on several grounds, the critical one being that plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of proving that the border vaccination was the proximate…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.