United States v. Olson
546 U.S. 43 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the United States waives sovereign immunity only in circumstances where a private individual, not a state or municipal entity, would be liable in tort under the law of the place where the act occurred.
Facts:
- Federal mine inspectors conducted safety inspections at a mine in Arizona.
- Subsequently, an accident occurred at the mine, seriously injuring two mine workers.
- The injured mine workers and one spouse believed the federal inspectors had been negligent in their inspections.
- The workers alleged that this negligence was a contributing cause of the accident and their resulting injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Two injured mine workers and a spouse sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The District Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding the plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to show a private person would be liable under Arizona law.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that for 'unique governmental functions,' liability could be based on whether a state or municipal entity would be liable.
- The United States (as petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari 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 Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waive the United States' sovereign immunity based on whether state law would hold a state or municipal entity liable for similar conduct, or is the waiver strictly limited to circumstances where state law would hold a private person liable in 'like circumstances'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity only under circumstances where a private person would be liable under state law, not where a state or municipal entity would be. The plain text of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), unequivocally states that liability attaches where the United States, 'if a private person,' would be liable. The Court's precedent, including Indian Towing Co. v. United States, has consistently adhered to this 'private person' standard, even for uniquely governmental functions. The Ninth Circuit's approach of substituting 'state or municipal entity' for 'private person' improperly reads language into the statute. Furthermore, the FTCA's 'like circumstances' language does not require an identical private activity, only an analogous one. A private safety inspector serves as a proper analogue to a federal mine inspector, and liability can be assessed based on 'good Samaritan' principles of state tort law, which hold that one who undertakes to warn or protect others must do so with reasonable care.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a uniform, text-based interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity. It squarely rejects the Ninth Circuit's 'uniquely governmental functions' exception, which had broadened federal liability by allowing comparisons to state and municipal entities. The ruling clarifies that for any claim under the FTCA, courts must find a private-sector analogue for the government's conduct, even if one is not immediately obvious. This precedent makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to sue the government for negligence in regulatory or inspection activities by requiring them to ground their claims in established state tort law principles applicable to private actors.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Olson