HUBSCH

v.

UNITED STATES; AND SCHWEITZER V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Dolcie Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …d States has waived its sovereign immunity against liability for the acts complained of by the plaintiff. Brooks v. A.R. & S. Enterprises, Inc., 622 F. 2d 8, 10 (1st Cir.1980); Hubsch v. United States, 174 F. 2d 7, 9 (5th Cir.1949), cert. dismissed, 340 U.S. 804, 71 S.Ct. 35, 95 L.Ed. 590 (1950).3 Unless, according to the law of Florida, the United States could be liable for this alleged tort of its employee if it were a private person, then not only is the sovereign’s immunity intact, but the district cour…
• United States v. Hull, 195 F.2d 64 (1st Cir. 1952)
  …owner”; thus the owner may be liable under such a statute for the negligence of an authorized bailee using the car on some business other than that of the owner. Cf. Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F. 2d 7, 10, certiorari dismissed 1950, 340 U.S. 804, 71 S.Ct. 35, 95 L.Ed. 590. The latter case does not fall within the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act, since the negligent bailee would not be an employee of the government acting within the scope of his employment. [*68] But 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)…
• United States v. Grover Alexander, 238 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. 1956)
  …. 2d 631. This Court has said that the Act, as an immunity statute, was subject to the strict construction rule. Hubsch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F. 2d 7, remanded 338 U.S. 440, 70 S.Ct. 225, 94 L.Ed. 244, dismissed on motion of petitioner 340 U.S. 804, 71 S.Ct. 35, 95 L.Ed. 590. The view expressed in the Hubsch case must yield to the rule thereafter announced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Yellow Cab Co., supra. We find nothing in the legislative history of the Act that gives us a gui…