Laird v. Nelms
406 U.S. 797, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 123, 32 L. Ed. 2d 499 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA) limited waiver of sovereign immunity for injuries caused by a "negligent or wrongful act or omission" does not extend to claims based on a theory of strict or absolute liability for ultrahazardous activities.
Facts:
- United States military aircraft were based in California.
- These military planes conducted a training mission over North Carolina.
- During the mission, the planes created a sonic boom.
- Property owned by Nelms and others was damaged as a result of the sonic boom.
- The property owners were unable to show any negligence in the planning or operation of the flight.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelms and other property owners (Respondents) brought an action against the United States (Petitioners) in the United States District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The District Court entered summary judgment for the United States.
- The property owners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs could proceed on a theory of strict liability.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 Federal Tort Claims Act permit claims against the United States based on a theory of strict or absolute liability for damages caused by ultrahazardous activities conducted by government employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, the Federal Tort Claims Act does not permit claims against the United States based on a theory of strict liability. The Act's waiver of immunity is limited to liability for a "negligent or wrongful act or omission" by a government employee, which constitutes a uniform federal limitation that excludes liability without fault. The Court reaffirmed its precedent in Dalehite v. United States, holding that absolute liability is imposed automatically based on the decision to engage in a dangerous activity, irrespective of the tortfeasor's conduct, and thus falls outside the scope of the FTCA. The Court rejected the argument that the sonic boom constituted a common-law trespass, reasoning that such a theory would be a backdoor attempt to impose the strict liability that Congress legislatively excluded. Legislative history indicates Congress intended to cover ordinary common-law torts involving fault, not to impose liability for authorized government activities that are merely ultrahazardous.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the Federal Tort Claims Act should permit claims based on strict liability where state law would hold a private person liable. The dissent argued that the phrase "negligent or wrongful act or omission" should be interpreted broadly to include the entire range of tortious conduct under state law, including strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. The majority's reliance on Dalehite is misplaced, as that case's reasoning has been criticized and implicitly abandoned by subsequent decisions like Indian Towing Co. v. United States. The Act's purpose is to treat the government as a private person would be treated, and it is illogical to hold a private entity strictly liable for blasting damage while exempting the government for identical conduct causing identical harm. This outcome contradicts the Act's rationale of spreading the cost of government-caused harm among all taxpayers rather than letting it fall entirely on an innocent victim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the precedent from Dalehite v. United States, firmly establishing that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for claims based on strict liability. It creates a uniform federal standard that overrides state tort law doctrines of liability without fault when suing the federal government. The ruling significantly narrows the scope of government liability, forcing plaintiffs in cases involving inherently dangerous government activities to prove specific negligence or a wrongful act, which is often a much higher evidentiary burden. Consequently, individuals harmed by non-negligent, but ultrahazardous, government conduct are left without a remedy under the FTCA.
