United States v. James
92 L. Ed. 2d 483, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 136, 478 U.S. 597 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The immunity provision of the Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702c, which states that no liability shall rest upon the United States for any damage from floods or floodwaters, provides absolute immunity from all tort claims, including those for personal injury caused by the government's negligence in managing flood control projects.
Facts:
- The United States Corps of Engineers operated the Millwood Dam and Reservoir in Arkansas for both flood control and recreational purposes, which the government promoted.
- On June 8, 1979, the Corps opened the dam's tainter gates to release water from the reservoir, which was at 'flood stage,' creating a powerful current.
- Charlotte James and Kathy Butler were water-skiing in what appeared to be calm water when they fell and were swept toward the gates.
- Warning buoys that were supposed to delineate the danger zone had broken away and were out of place.
- Eddy Butler attempted to rescue his wife but was pulled through the gates and drowned; Charlotte James and Kathy Butler were pulled through and injured.
- In a separate incident on May 17, 1980, the Corps opened the gates of the Courtableau Drainage Structure in Louisiana to release flood-stage waters.
- Kenneth Clardy and his father were fishing when their boat was disabled by the strong current and drawn through the open gates; Kenneth Clardy drowned.
- The only warnings at the Courtableau structure were two faded signs that were not visible until boaters had already been swept past them.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents James and Butler sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The district court found the government was willfully negligent but concluded that § 702c provided immunity and denied relief.
- Respondent Clardy sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under the FTCA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the United States, finding the claim was barred by § 702c.
- The plaintiffs (James, Butler, and Clardy) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which consolidated the cases.
- A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts' judgments based on circuit precedent.
- The Fifth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc and reversed the district courts, holding that § 702c does not immunize the government from liability for negligent acts in the operation of flood control projects.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court 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 immunity provision of the Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702c, bar recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries caused by the federal government's negligent failure to warn of dangers arising from the operation of federal flood control projects?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the immunity provision of the Flood Control Act bars recovery for these personal injuries. The plain language of § 702c—'[n]o liability of any kind shall attach... for any damage from or by floods or flood waters'—is sweeping and unambiguous. This broad language covers all damages, including personal injury, and applies to all waters contained in or released from a federal flood control project for flood control purposes. The legislative history from the 1928 Act confirms that Congress intended to provide absolute immunity to protect the federal treasury from the immense potential liability associated with these massive public works projects. Arguments that the immunity is limited only to property damage or that it does not apply to negligent recreational management are unpersuasive because the failure to warn is part of the overall management of a flood control project.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the immunity provision does not bar recovery for personal injuries. The word 'damage' in § 702c, according to its traditional legal meaning at the time of the Act's passage in 1928, referred to harm to property, not personal injury. The Court incorrectly conflates the term 'damage' (harm) with 'damages' (monetary compensation). The legislative history and the structure of the Act show that Congress was concerned with allocating the costs of property damage from flooding, not with immunizing the government from its own future negligence causing personal injury—a liability that did not even exist at the federal level until the Federal Tort Claims Act was passed nearly two decades later. Ascribing to Congress the perverse intent to provide compensation for property owners while completely barring recovery for victims of government negligence defies belief.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an exceptionally broad interpretation of sovereign immunity under the Flood Control Act, effectively insulating the federal government from liability for its own negligence related to flood control activities. It clarifies that specific immunity statutes like § 702c can override the general waiver of sovereign immunity found in the Federal Tort Claims Act. The ruling places the onus on Congress to explicitly amend the statute if it wishes to create exceptions for negligence or personal injury, reinforcing a textualist approach that gives full effect to the plain, expansive language of a statute, even when it leads to harsh results.
