Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
464 U.S. 238 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Atomic Energy Act does not pre-empt state-law awards of punitive damages for injuries caused by radiation from a federally-licensed nuclear facility. State tort remedies, including punitive damages, can coexist with the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate nuclear safety.
Facts:
- Karen Silkwood was a laboratory analyst at Kerr-McGee's Cimarron plant, which fabricated plutonium fuel pins for nuclear reactors under a federal license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
- Over a three-day period in November 1974, Silkwood was contaminated with plutonium from the plant on three separate occasions.
- The first two instances of contamination occurred at the plant itself, and she was decontaminated on-site.
- On the third day, high levels of contamination were found on Silkwood upon her arrival at the plant, leading to an inspection of her apartment.
- Investigators discovered significant plutonium contamination in several rooms of Silkwood's apartment, including the kitchen and bathroom, necessitating the destruction of many of her personal belongings.
- Kerr-McGee stipulated that the plutonium that caused the contamination originated from its plant.
- Shortly after these incidents, on November 13, 1974, Karen Silkwood was killed in an unrelated automobile accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Bill Silkwood, as administrator of Karen Silkwood's estate, filed a diversity action against Kerr-McGee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma based on state common-law tort principles.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding $505,000 in actual damages and $10 million in punitive damages.
- The district court entered judgment on the verdict, denying Kerr-McGee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which argued that federal law pre-empted the punitive damages award.
- Kerr-McGee, the defendant-appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the property damage award but reversed the personal injury and punitive damages awards, holding that the latter was pre-empted by federal law.
- Bill Silkwood, the plaintiff-appellee at the appellate level, then sought review of the reversal of the punitive damages award from the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 Atomic Energy Act pre-empt a state-law tort claim for punitive damages awarded for injuries arising from the escape of plutonium from a federally licensed nuclear facility?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The federal Atomic Energy Act does not pre-empt a state-law award of punitive damages for injuries caused by nuclear incidents. Congress did not intend for the federal government's exclusive authority over nuclear safety regulation to strip away traditional state tort remedies available to those injured by nuclear hazards. The legislative history of the Price-Anderson Act, which established a federal indemnification scheme for nuclear accidents, demonstrates that Congress assumed state-law remedies would remain available. Because punitive damages are a traditional element of state tort law, and Congress has not expressly forbidden them, they are not pre-empted. While there is tension between exclusive federal safety regulation and state-imposed liability, Congress intended to tolerate this tension.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The federal Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state-law award of punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is to regulate conduct by punishing and deterring, which falls squarely within the field of nuclear safety that this Court previously held is exclusively occupied by the federal government. While compensatory damages are permissible because their purpose is to compensate victims—an area not federally occupied—punitive damages allow a state jury to impose a safety standard that may be more stringent than the federal one, directly conflicting with the NRC's exclusive regulatory authority. This creates an impermissible dual regulation scheme that pre-emption is designed to prevent.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
Yes. The federal Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state-law award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are regulatory, not compensatory, in nature. Allowing lay juries to impose enormous penalties based on their own judgments about nuclear safety directly undermines the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme entrusted to an expert agency, the NRC. This decision effectively authorizes juries to act as unauthorized regulators, second-guessing the complex, technical safety standards established by federal experts. The NRC investigated the Silkwood incident and found no significant violation worthy of punishment, yet a jury was permitted to impose a $10 million penalty, which conflicts with the fundamental concept of uniform federal control over nuclear safety.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of federal pre-emption under the Atomic Energy Act, establishing that federal occupation of the nuclear safety field does not displace state tort remedies for injured individuals. The ruling creates a dual system of accountability where nuclear operators are subject to both federal safety regulations and the deterrent effect of state punitive damage awards. This holding has broad implications for other heavily regulated industries, suggesting that compliance with federal safety standards may not be a complete shield against substantial state-law punitive damages for conduct that a jury finds to be reckless or grossly negligent.
Unlock the full brief for Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.