Naval medical aide, Carr, became intoxicated after his shift, and three of his co-workers found him face down on a hospital floor.

However, the plaintiffs argued that the co-workers were the negligent party in allowing Carr to continue in his drunken stupor.

However, the District Court held that because Carr was a government employee, prior Fourth Circuit precedent was a bar to recovery.

This case could have been decided because the claim arose out of the negligence of the prisoner guards, and the assault was just the natural causal effect of the negligence, or because the Supreme Court held that if the only issue was whether the Government should be held liable for Carr's action, the intentional tort exception would preclude litigation under the FTCA.

However, the "Government voluntarily adopted regulations that prohibit the possession of firearms on the naval base and that require personnel to report the present of any such firearm, and by further voluntarily undertaking to provide care to a person who was visibly drunk and visibly armed, the Government assumed responsibility to 'perform its good Samaritan task in a careful manner.'"