Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Bushey vs.

United States
Twenty-six years ago, in Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States , 398 F.d !"# $d
%ir. !9"8&, this court he'd that the United States (overn)ent was vicarious'y 'ia*'e +or
da)age to a drydoc, caused *y a drun,en sai'or who was returning to shi- +ro) a night.s
'i*erty. In his ce'e*rated o-inion, /udge 0enry Friend'y descri*ed the *asis o+ res-ondeat
su-erior as the 1dee-'y rooted senti)ent that a *usiness enter-rise cannot 2ust'y disc'ai)
res-onsi*i'ity +or accidents which )ay +air'y *e said to *e characteristic o+ its activities.1
Id . at !#!. 3ven though the sai'or had *eco)e drun, whi'e on 'i*erty and +ar o++ *ase, we
noted that drin,ing on 'eave was so co))on a -art o+ nava' 'i+e that the sai'or.s drun,en
return to shi- cou'd +air'y *e dee)ed to *e characteristic o+ the )i'itary enter-rise and,
hence, that the govern)ent shou'd *e he'd 'ia*'e +or the da)age that he caused. See id . at