Maryland, for the Use of Levin, et al. v. United States
381 U.S. 41 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act, a member of a state National Guard, whether serving in a military or civilian 'caretaker' capacity, is an employee of the state and not an employee of the United States, unless the Guard unit has been called into active federal service.
Facts:
- A Capital Airlines passenger plane collided in mid-air with a jet trainer assigned to the Maryland Air National Guard.
- The collision, which occurred over Maryland, was caused by the negligence of Captain McCoy, the pilot of the National Guard jet.
- The crash resulted in the deaths of the pilot and co-pilot of the Capital Airlines plane.
- Captain McCoy was a commissioned officer in the Maryland Air National Guard, serving part-time as a military pilot.
- McCoy was also employed full-time by the Guard as a civilian Aircraft Maintenance Chief, a federally funded 'caretaker' position responsible for the upkeep of federal equipment allocated to the Guard.
- On the day of the accident, McCoy was conducting a flight to interest a passenger in joining the Air National Guard.
- At the time of the collision, Captain McCoy's National Guard unit was not in active federal service.
Procedural Posture:
- The estates of the Capital Airlines pilots (petitioners) sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court, proceeding on the record from a similar case in another circuit, rendered judgment for the petitioners.
- The United States appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment, finding for the United States.
- The petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between the Circuits on the same issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a member of a state National Guard, serving in either a military or a civilian 'caretaker' capacity, considered an 'employee of the Government' under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the Guard unit is not in active federal service?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. A member of the National Guard, in either a military or civilian capacity, is an employee of the state and not the federal government for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act when not in active federal service. The National Guard is the modern militia reserved to the states by the Constitution. Although military members are paid with federal funds and must meet federal standards, their appointment and immediate control by state authorities make them state employees. The Court reasoned that civilian 'caretakers' like McCoy occupy the same status. They are appointed, supervised, and can be discharged by the State Adjutant General. Their function is to maintain federal property for which the state is responsible, in order to keep the state militia in a state of readiness. The Court's analysis of legislative history, including the National Defense Act, Social Security Act amendments, and administrative claims statutes, revealed a consistent congressional understanding and administrative practice of treating these individuals as state employees, not federal employees.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
The opinion notes that Mr. Justice Douglas dissents but provides no written reasoning for the dissent.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a circuit split and definitively established that the United States is not vicariously liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the negligence of National Guard personnel who are not on active federal duty. The ruling clarifies the dual state-federal nature of the Guard, firmly placing members in the category of state employees for tort liability purposes during their regular training and maintenance duties. This has a significant impact on future plaintiffs, who cannot sue the federal government for such torts and must instead seek redress from the states, which may be protected by sovereign immunity, or through more limited administrative remedies Congress has provided.
