Navy ship, which rolled on top of the sailboat, splintering the boat and causing it to sink). The second way a rescuer might worsen a situation is by inducing reliance on the rescuer’s efforts. See Restatement § 323(b). Courts have imposed liability when the Coast Guard’s actions caused potential rescuers to “ ‘rest on their oars’ ... in reliance on the Coast Guard’s undertaking and its presumed, unless affirmatively disclaimed, competency.” Daley v. United States, 499 F.Supp. 1005, 1010 (D.Mass.1980) (quoting Lacey v. United States, 98 F.Supp. 219, 220 (D.Mass.1951)); see Sandra & Dennis Fishing Corp., 372 F.2d at 195 (“[T]he government must not mislead, and induce reliance upon a belief that it is providing something which, in fact, it is not providing.”); Gavagan, 280 F.2d at 328-29 (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s duty of care under the Good
holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists holding that direct reliance was not shown where plaintiffs relied on third partys actions which were in turn undertaken in reliance on alleged misrepresentation by defendant holding that plaintiffs claim of negligence against a florida corporation predicated on her slip and fall on a cruise ship operated by the company off the coast of california arose out of the alien corporations solicitation of business in the state of washington holding that the coast guards failure to pass on vital information caused wouldbe rescuers to stand by in reliance on the coast guards celebrated skill holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy