1160, 1187, 1186 n. 37, 1187 (E.D.Pa.1978) (Becker, J.) (stating that in a FTCA case the government may be held liable for negligent inspection even where the source of the duty arises under federal law if the plaintiffs claims are based on alleged breaches of duty arising under state law). b. The Good Samaritan Rule Generally. Under the Good Samaritan rule, which has been adopted as the law of Pennsylvania, a person is “liable to another for breach of a duty voluntarily assumed by affirmative conduct, even when that assumption of duty is gratuitous.” Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707, 713-714 (3d Cir.1982) (citing Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323, 324A); see Blessing, 447 F.Supp. at 1187 (<HOLDING>); Cantwell v. Allegheny County, 506 Pa. 35, 483
recognizing restatement second of torts  428 but also discussing the inherently dangerous activities standard recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977 recognizing that restatement second of torts   416 to 429 are often overlapping recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e