2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-29-2008 

# Ja ckson v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4960

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J a ck s on v . U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1112. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1112NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 4960 S T E VE N J AC KS ON, A ppel l ant

v. L I BE RT Y M UT UAL I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY,

Subr ogee of

T he Shaw G r oup, I n t e r v e n o rP l a i n t i f f i n DC v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E W E S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 01579) D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

A r gued: M ay5, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay29, 2008)2

J onathan M . K ami n, E s q. ( A r gued) Sam uel P. K ami n, E s q. D avi d A . W ol f, E s q. G o ld b e rg , K a m in & G a rv in 437 G r antSt r eet 1806 Fr i ck B ui l di ng Phi l adel phi a, PA 15219- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant C hr i s t opherJ . W al ker , E s q ( A r gued) I s aac J . L i ds ky , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20530- 0000 R ober tL . E berhar dt , E s q. L aur a S. I rw i n, E s q. O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 700 G r antSt r eet Sui t e 4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge T he exc el l entR eportand R ecomm endat i on ( “R & R ”) of the M agi s t r at e J udge, adopt ed as i t s O pi ni on byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , acc ur at el ys etfor t h t he fa ct s of thi s cas e and3

the contr ol l i ng l aw and conc l uded thatthe U ni t ed St at es i s i m m une fr om s ui tbyvi r tue of the indep end ent cont ract or excep t i on t o the Fed eral T ortC l ai m s A ct(“FT C A ”) and, t hu s, thatthe U ni t ed St at es ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) forl ack of s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n s h o u ld b e g ra n te d . O u r r e v ie w o f a R u le 1 2 (b )( 1 ) d is m is s a l is p le n a ry. G o u ld E lec tro n ics , In c . v . U n ited S tate s, 2 2 0 F .3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W e w ill r ever s e and r emand forfur t herpr ocee di ngs . B eca us e, how ever , w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , and bec aus e the fa ct s i n t he ca s e ar e l ar gel yundi s put ed, i ti s nei t hernece s s arynor us eful t o r epr i s e fa ct s ot hert han thos e w hi ch pr om ptus t o r eac h a conc l us i on di ffe r ent f ro m th a t r e a c h e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . Suffi ce i tt o s ayt hatt her e i s no ques t i on thati f ther e i s an i ndepende ntcontr act or exce pt i on t o t he FT C A , and w e have s ai d i n N or m an v. U ni t ed St at es , 111 F. 3d 356 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , t hatt her e i s , t he U ni t ed St at es i s notl i abl e fori nj ur i es caus ed bythe n e g lig e n c e o f

its in d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c to r, S h a w . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o rr e c tly so f o u n d . B utt he FT C A does noti m m uni ze the U ni t ed St at es fr om cl ai m s agai ns ti tfor i nj ur i es caus ed byt he negl i gence orom i s s i on of i t s ow n empl oy ees i f thos e empl oy ees w ere ac ti n g w ith in the sco p e o f th eir em p loym en t. If su ch ac ts are allege d , a d istri ct co u rt w o u ld h a v e su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain th e c laim , w ith th e f in d in g o f liab ili ty u ltim a te ly f

o r t h e f a c tf in d e r. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 6 (b )( 1 ). T h ere are a n u m b er o f in d ep en d en t acts of n eg li g en ce o n the p art of o n e o r m o re e m p lo y e e s o f

th e U n ited S tate s a lleg e d , alb e it cu rso rily , in th e c o m p lain t an d se t f o rth inW e as s um e thatt he R & R di d notgo t hi s farbeca us e J acks on’ s pr i m aryar gum ent 1 w a s s o m e th in g q u ite d if f e re n t, i .e. th a t th e in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r e x c e p tio n d id n o t ap p ly beca us e Fr ank J ames’ act s w i t h r es pectt o t he pr oj ect i l e w hi ch ca us ed the i nj ur i es a m o u n ted to th e U n ited S tate s e x e rc isin g c o n tro l o v e r S h a w ’s c o n tra c tu a l d u ties . T h is a rg u m e n t w a s c o rr e c tly re je c te d . 4 s om e det ai l i n t he R & R , al bei tnotdenomi nat ed and di s cus s ed as act s of negl i gence “i nd epen den t ” of those of S haw . A l l of these act s, part i cular l ytho se of F rank Jam es,

1 ei therpr edat ed Shaw ’ s entr yont o t he w or k s i t e ori nvol ved no af fi r m at i ve conduc tor o m issi o n b yan yS h aw em p loy ee . Ind ee d , itco u ld w ell b e a rgu ed that ab sen t on e o r m o re of thes e ac t s , t he ac ci dentand the gr i evous i nj ur i es s uffe r ed byJ acks on w oul d nothave o c c u rr e d . W e q u o te f

ro m th e R & R w h ich , as n o ted , w a s a d o p ted b yth e D istric t C o u rt a s its O p in io n in th is c a se :

I n ear l yN ovember2002, befor e Shaw began w or ki ng atSi t e 41, Fr ank J ames, a N avys afe t yoffi cer , w as as ked t o i ns pecta pr oj ect i l e that had bee n found i n a tr ench a tthe N aval B as e. Fr ank J ames i ns pect ed the p rojec til e a n d o b se rv e d it h a d n o n o se f u se , b u t h e sa w th e re w a s a h o le in the ce nt erof the pr oj ect i l e. W i t h a s cr ew dr i ver , M r . J ames s cr aped i n t he hol e and s aw a tr ace rel ement , w hi ch l ed hi m t o bel i eve the pr oj ect i l e had been f i r ed. M r . J ames then t ook t he pr oj ect i l e t o Si t e 41 and w r ot e a “ gr een ta g ” f o r i t, w h ic h m e a n t it w a s c le a re d to p ro c e e d to th e n e x t le v e l. T her eaf t er , t he C om m andi ng O ffi ceratthe N aval B as e r eques t ed thatanotherpr oj ect i l e s i tuat ed atSi t e 41 be r etr i eved a nd cl eane d, s o he c o u l d d i s p l a yi t . Ho we v e r , a g o v e r n me n tc o n t r a c t o rr e mo v e d th e s a me pr oj ect i l e w hi ch had be en found i n t he tr ench a nd i ns pect ed byFr ank J ames – nott he one r eques t ed byt he C om m andi ng O ffi cer– and i tw as cl eane d and s andbl as t ed, w hi ch made t he pr oj ect i l e s hi ne. W hen Fr ank J ames beca m e aw ar e thatt he w r ong pr oj ect i l e had be en r etr i eved a nd s andbl as t ed, he t ook t he s andbl as t ed pr oj ect i l e bac k t o Si t e 41, w her e Shaw per s onnelT h e Un i t e d S t a t e s i s s h i e l d e d f r o m l i a b i l i t yf

o ra n yn e g l i g e n c e o n th e p a r to f Al 2 G r antand/ orot herShaw empl oy ees , i ncl udi ng J acks on hi m s el f, unl es s the U ni t ed St at es had the pow ert o contr ol and/ ordi d contr ol thei rday - t o- dayoper at i ons . See N or m an, 111 F .3 d a t 3 5 7 . A s w e h a v e a lr e a d ys u g g e s te d in n o te 1 , th e re is n o s u c h e v id e n c e . 5 h ad arrived an d w ere w o rkin g . F ran k Jam es sp o k e to A l G ran t, S h aw ’s U X O s u p e rv is o r, a n d e x p la in e d w h yh e w a s re tu rn in g th e p roje c tile . A this dep osi t i on , A l G rantt est i fi ed as fo l l ow s: F ra n k [ Ja m e s] b ro u g h t [ th e p rojec til e ] b a c k to us , and then I j us tputi toff t o t he s i de. I as ked h im w h a t is it, a n d h e s a id d o n ’t w o rr ya b o u t it. It’s s a f e to c u t u p . It’s a sh o t ro u n d a n d sa f e to c u t u p . A l G ran t r eit era ted th at w h en F ran k Jam es re turn ed the p rojec ti le “h e d idn ’t s ayanyt hi ng. H e j us tbr oughti tup and s ai d her e i s thi s thi ng, y ou can ha ve it b a c k , a n d I s a id , y o u k n o w , o k a y , n o p ro b le m a n d w e p u t it o f f to th e s id e . W e di s cus s ed w hathe thoughti tw as , [w hi ch w as ] an obs ol et e s hel l . ” (cit ati o n s o m itted) (A . 0 0 9 -01 0 ). 2 T her e i s no s ugges t i on t hatt hes e ac t s di d nott ake pl ace , and ther e i s no di s put e as t o w her e and w hen theyt ook pl ace . N ori s ther e anys ugges t i on thatFr ank J ames w as not a c tin g w ith in th e sc o p e o f h is e m p lo ym e n t w h e n h e a d m itt e d lym isid e n tifie d th e p rojec til e a s o n e sa f

e to h a n d le a n d tw ice b ro u g h t itto th e S h a w w o rk site to b e d e stro y e d . T h is is enough, i n ourvi ew , t o have w arr ant ed deni al of the mot i on t o di s m i s s on j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds . W hethert he U ni t ed St at es ’ al t ernat e ar gum ent s befor e the M agi s t r at e J udge w i l l ul t i m at el ycarr yt he day– w hetheranynegl i gence byShaw w as an i nt erveni ng and su p erc ed ing ca u se o f Ja ck so n ’s i n juri es a n d w h ethe r Jac k so n assu m ed the risk o f in jury w hen he a t t empt ed t o cutt he pr oj ect i l e w i t h a bl ow t or ch – s houl d be r es ol ved on the m er i t s , and noti n a j ur i s di ct i onal chal l enge. M at s ko v. U ni t ed St at es , 372 F. 3d 556, 5616

(3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e w i l l r ever s e the or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand forfur t herpr ocee di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is O p in io n .