United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) et al.
467 U.S. 797 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act bars claims against the United States for the Federal Aviation Administration's alleged negligence in its aircraft certification process, as the establishment and implementation of a compliance review system are policy-based decisions protected from judicial second-guessing.
Facts:
- In 1958, the Civil Aeronautics Agency (CAA), a predecessor to the FAA, issued a type certificate for the Boeing 707 aircraft design.
- In one incident, a fire broke out in a lavatory on a Boeing 707 operated by S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), killing 124 people. The fire allegedly originated in a towel disposal area that did not comply with CAA fire protection standards.
- In a separate incident, a DeHavilland Dove aircraft owned by John Dowdle crashed after a fire started near a gasoline-burning cabin heater that had been installed under an FAA supplemental type certificate.
- The crash was attributed to defects in the heater's installation, which allegedly did not comply with applicable FAA regulations.
- In both cases, there was no indication that an FAA inspector had specifically reviewed the particular component of the aircraft that ultimately failed.
- The FAA's certification procedure relied on a 'spot-check' system, where the manufacturer was primarily responsible for ensuring compliance and the FAA reviewed the manufacturer's data and conducted selective inspections.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Varig case, Varig Airlines and passengers' families sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States, finding the claims were barred by the FTCA's discretionary function exception.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the exception did not apply.
- In the Dowdle case, John Dowdle and insurance companies sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The Ninth Circuit initially reversed and remanded. On remand, the District Court again found for the plaintiffs, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this second judgment.
- The United States (as petitioner) sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decisions in both consolidated cases, and the Court granted it.
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 discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act bar a lawsuit against the United States for the Federal Aviation Administration's alleged negligence in its aircraft certification process?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act bars a lawsuit against the United States for the FAA's alleged negligence in its aircraft certification process. The establishment and implementation of a system for regulatory compliance are discretionary functions protected from tort liability. The legislative history of the FTCA shows Congress intended to protect the discretionary acts of the government in its role as a regulator and prevent judicial 'second-guessing' of administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy. The FAA's decision to use a 'spot-check' system for aircraft certification is a policy judgment based on balancing safety objectives against practical considerations like staffing and funding. The actions of FAA employees executing this spot-check program are also protected, as they involve making policy judgments about how to allocate agency resources and how much to rely on a manufacturer's compliance efforts. These decisions fall squarely within the discretionary function exception.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the protection afforded to federal agencies under the discretionary function exception of the FTCA. It established that not only the creation of a regulatory enforcement policy but also the day-to-day operational execution of that policy are shielded from tort liability. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for plaintiffs to sue the government for negligence in its regulatory oversight functions, as agencies can defend their actions as discretionary policy choices. The case solidifies the principle that the government's duty is to promote public safety through regulation, not to insure it, thereby limiting the government's financial exposure for harms that occur within regulated industries.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) et al.