Lexplug logoLexplug

Dalehite v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
346 U.S. 15 (1953)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act immunizes the United States from liability for acts of negligence that occur at the planning or policy-making level, as opposed to the operational level. This protection extends to the formulation of plans and specifications, even if the discretion involved is abused.


Facts:

  • Following World War II, the United States Government initiated a program to produce Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate (FGAN) for export to occupied countries in Europe and Asia.
  • The decision to undertake the program was made at the cabinet level, and the U.S. Army's Chief of Ordnance was tasked with its execution.
  • The Army developed a detailed plan and specifications for the production of FGAN, which included the composition of the fertilizer, the coating material to be used, the temperature for bagging, and the type of paper bags for packaging.
  • The government entered into contracts with private companies to operate former munitions plants to produce the FGAN according to these government-mandated specifications and under government supervision.
  • FGAN produced under this program was transported to Texas City, Texas, for shipment overseas.
  • In April 1947, while being loaded onto the steamships Grandcamp and High Flyer in the port of Texas City, the FGAN caught fire.
  • The fire led to massive explosions aboard both ships, destroying much of the city, killing Henry G. Dalehite and over 500 other people, and injuring thousands.

Procedural Posture:

  • Henry G. Dalehite's representatives, along with approximately 300 other claimants, filed suit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
  • The District Court held a consolidated trial on the issue of liability and found that the United States was negligent in manufacturing, bagging, and labeling the fertilizer.
  • The District Court entered a judgment in favor of Dalehite for $75,000.
  • The United States, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals, with Dalehite's representatives as appellees, reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the government's actions were protected by the discretionary function exception of the FTCA.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act bar a suit against the United States for negligence in its decisions regarding the manufacturing, packaging, and shipping of fertilizer as part of a government program, which led to a catastrophic explosion?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Reed

Yes. The discretionary function exception bars the suit because the allegedly negligent acts were all the result of policy-level decisions. The Federal Tort Claims Act's exception for discretionary functions includes more than just the initiation of programs; it encompasses determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications, or schedules of operations. The decisions regarding the FGAN's manufacturing process, temperature, packaging, and labeling were all made at a planning, rather than operational, level, involving the exercise of judgment and the balancing of competing policy considerations. Because these decisions were discretionary, the government is immune from suit under § 2680(a) of the Act, even if the discretion was exercised negligently.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson

No. The discretionary function exception does not bar this suit because the government's negligence occurred in carrying out 'housekeeping' activities akin to those of a private manufacturer, not in making high-level policy. While the decision to aid foreign nations is a discretionary policy, the subsequent acts of manufacturing and shipping a dangerous product are operational and should be held to a standard of reasonable care. The exception should protect uniquely governmental functions, like regulation, but not proprietary activities where the government acts like a private person. The government should be liable when its careless execution of a policy causes widespread harm.



Analysis:

This decision established a broad interpretation of the FTCA's discretionary function exception, creating the influential 'planning-operational' distinction. By immunizing decisions made at the planning level, the Court significantly limited the government's tort liability for large-scale programs and shielded policy choices from judicial second-guessing through tort litigation. The ruling protects government officials' ability to make policy without fear of liability, but it has been criticized for potentially immunizing negligent planning that leads to catastrophic harm and for creating ambiguity in distinguishing planning from operational acts.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Dalehite v. United States (1953) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Dalehite v. United States