Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/350/61/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-07-21 05:06:37
Document Index: 87922224

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1346', '§ 2680', '§ 2680', '§ 2674', '§ 2680', '§ 2680', '§ 2680', '§ 2401', '§ 2402', '§ 2672', '§ 2673', '§ 2674', '§ 2675', '§ 2677', '§ 2679', '§ 2680', '§ 81', '§ 1346', '§ 2674', '§ 2680', '§ 1346', '§ 2674', '§ 1']

INDIAN TOWING CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 350 U. S. 61 - Volume 350 - 1955 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 350 > INDIAN TOWING CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 350 U. S. 61 (1955) > Full Text
recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the Coast Guard in the operation of a lighthouse light. They alleged that, on October 1, 1951, the tug Navajo, owned by petitioner Indian Towing Company, was towing Barge AS-16, chartered by petitioner Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation; that the barge was loaded with a cargo of triple super phosphate, consigned to petitioner Minnesota Farm Bureau Service Company and insured by petitioner United Firemen's Insurance Company; that the tug Navajo went aground on Chandeleur Island, and, as a result thereof, sea water wetted and damaged the cargo to the extent of $62,659.70; that the consignee refused to accept the cargo; that petitioners Indian Towing Company and Upper Mississippi Towing Corporation therefore became responsible for the loss of the cargo; and that the loss was paid by petitioner United Firemen's Insurance Company under loan receipts. The complaint further stated that the grounding of the Navajo was due solely to the failure of the light on Chandeleur Island, which, in turn, was caused by the negligence of the Coast Guard. The specific acts of negligence relied on were the failure of the responsible Coast Guard personnel to check the battery and sun relay system which operated the light; the failure of the Chief Petty Officer who checked the lighthouse on September 7, 1951, to make a proper examination of the connections which were "out in the weather;" the failure to check the light between September 7 and October 1, 1951; and the failure to repair the light or give warning that the light was not operating. Petitioners also alleged that there was a loose connection which could have been discovered upon proper inspection.
The question is one of liability for negligence at what this Court has characterized the "operational level" of governmental activity. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 346 U. S. 42. The Government concedes that the exception of § 2680 relieving from liability for negligent "exercise of judgment" (which is the way the Government paraphrases a "discretionary function" in § 2680(a)) is not involved here, and it does not deny that the Federal Tort Claims Act does provide for liability in some situations on the "operational level" of its activity. But the Government contends that the language of § 2674 (and the implications of § 2680) imposing liability "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . . " must be read as excluding liability in the performance of activities which private persons do not perform. Thus, there would be no liability for negligent performance of "uniquely governmental functions." The Government reads that statute as if it imposed liability to the same extent as would be imposed on a private individual "under the same circumstances." But the statutory language is "under like circumstances," and it is hornbook tort law that one who undertakes to warn the public of danger, and thereby
Furthermore, the Government in effect reads the statute as imposing liability in the same manner as if it were a municipal corporation, and not as if it were a private person, and it would thus push the courts into the "nongovernmental"-"governmental" quagmire that has long plagued the law of municipal corporations. A comparative study of the cases in the forty-eight States will disclose an irreconcilable conflict. More than that, the decisions in each of the States are disharmonious, and disclose the inevitable chaos when courts try to apply a rule of law that is inherently unsound. The fact of the matter is that the theory whereby municipalities are made amenable to liability is an endeavor, however awkward and contradictory, to escape from the basic historical doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act cuts the ground from under that doctrine; it is not self-defeating by covertly embedding the casuistries of municipal liability for torts. [Footnote 1]
Government's activity in the places where it operated a lighthouse, and we would be attributing bizarre motives to Congress were we to hold that it was predicating liability on such a completely fortuitous circumstance -- the presence of identical private activity. [Footnote 2]
While the area of liability is circumscribed by certain provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680, all Government activity is inescapably "uniquely governmental" in that it is performed by the Government. In a case in which the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, a wholly Government-owned enterprise, was sought to be held liable on a crop insurance policy on the theory that a private insurance company would be liable in the same situation, this Court stated:
Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, 332 U. S. 383-384. On the other hand, it is hard to think of any governmental activity on the "operational level," our present concern, which is "uniquely governmental," in the sense that its kind has not at one time or another been, or could not conceivably be, privately performed.
There is nothing in the Tort Claims Act which shows that Congress intended to draw distinctions so finespun and capricious as to be almost incapable of being held in the mind for adequate formulation. The statute was the product of nearly thirty years of congressional consideration, and was drawn with numerous substantive limitations and administrative safeguards. (For substantive limitations, see § 2680(a)-(m). [Footnote 3] For administrative safeguards, see § 2401(b) (statute of limitations); § 2402 (denial of trial by jury); § 2672 (administrative adjudgment of claims of $1,000 or less); § 2673 (reports to Congress); § 2674 (no liability for punitive damages or for interest prior to judgment); § 2675 (disposition by federal agency as prerequisite to suit when claim is filed); § 2677 (compromise); § 2679 (exclusiveness of remedy).) The language of the statute does not support the Government's argument. Loose general statements in the legislative history to which the Government points seem directed mainly toward the "discretionary function" exemption of § 2680, and are not persuasive. The broad and just purpose which the statute was designed to effect was to compensate the victims of negligence in the conduct of governmental activities in circumstances like unto those in which a private person would be liable, and not
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, and Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, controlling. Neither case is applicable. Feres held only that
340 U.S. at 340 U. S. 146. And see Brooks v. United States, 337 U. S. 49. The differences between this case and Dalehite need not be labored. The governing factors in Dalehite sufficiently emerge from the opinion in that case. [Footnote 4]
A good illustration of the effort of a conscientious court to reconcile the irreconcilable is Haley v. City of Boston, 191 Mass. 291, 77 N.E. 888. For an example of the confusion prevailing in one jurisdiction, compare District of Columbia v. Woodbury, 136 U. S. 450 (municipal corporation liable for injuries caused by negligent failure to keep sidewalk in repair) with Harris v. District of Columbia, 256 U. S. 650 (municipal corporation not liable for injuries caused by negligent sprinkling of streets). But, even in the law of municipal corporation and state liability, one State at least has sought to emerge from the quagmire. See the more recent New York cases: Foley v. State of New York, 294 N.Y. 275, 62 N.E.2d 69 (State liable when negligent failure to replace burned-out bulb in traffic light caused accident); Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N.Y. 361, 62 N.E.2d 604 (city liable in negligence action for damages caused by runaway police horse). When the confused law of municipal corporations is applied to the Tort Claims Act, the same unsatisfactory results occur. Compare the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the instant case, 211 F.2d 886, with its holding in United States v. Lawter, 219 F.2d 559 (United States liable under Tort Claims Act for negligence of Coast Guard during helicopter rescue operation).
Although the argument is more elaborately presented here, this is not the first statute which the Government has attempted to construe in this manner. The Suits in Admiralty Act, 41 Stat. 525, provided that a libel in personam could be brought against the United States for damage caused by a Government-owned merchant vessel or tug in cases "where, if such vessel were privately owned or operated . . . , a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained . . . ," and stated that
In Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 675, an action was brought under the Act to recover damages for the loss of a ship and cargo by collision with an unmarked wreck of a sunken Government-owned merchant vessel. The Government moved to dismiss the action on the ground, inter alia, the
The Court in Dalehite disposed of a claim of liability for negligence in connection with firefighting by finding that "there is no analogous liability . . . " in the law of torts. 346 U.S. at 346 U. S. 44. But see Workman v. New York City, 179 U. S. 552.
The Court reverses the judgment on the ground that the United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages caused by the negligence of the Coast Guard in maintaining a lighthouse light near the mouth of the Mississippi. The alleged negligence was the failure of the Coast Guard personnel to check the electrical system which operated the light, the failure to make a proper examination of the connections and other apparatus connected with the light, and the failure to repair the light or give notice to vessels that the light was not functioning. Although navigators were warned this was an "unwatched light," [Footnote 2/1] it is assumed at this point in the litigation that this negligence occurred and that it was the proximate cause of the loss. Government operation of the lighthouse was authorized by 14 U.S.C. § 81. It is forbidden to others except by authority of the Coast Guard. [Footnote 2/2]
The question of the liability of the United States for this negligence depends on the scope and meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The history of the adoption of that Act has heretofore been thoroughly explained. [Footnote 2/3] Before its enactment, the immunity of the Government from such tort actions was absolute. The Act authorized suits against the Government under certain conditions. The Government was made liable for injury to persons or property
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). There was a further condition, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, that the United States should be liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." [Footnote 2/4]
In Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, we passed upon the applicability of the Act to claims by members of the armed services injured through the negligence of other military personnel. [Footnote 2/5] We said:
Id. at 340 U. S. 141-142. Thus, in Feres, the Court was of the view that the Act does not create new causes of action theretofore beyond the applicable law of torts. So, in determining whether an action for negligence in maintaining public lights is permissible, we must consider whether similar actions were allowed by the law of the place where the negligence occurred, prior to the Tort Claims Act, against public bodies otherwise subject to suit.
Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 346 U. S. 42, followed the reasoning of Feres. That case involved, among other issues, the liability of the United States for negligence of the Coast Guard in fighting fire. The Coast Guard had been found negligent in its fire-fighting duties by the trial court. These duties were outside the discretionary function exception of § 2680(a) of the Act. Resting our decision on the Act itself, we said the Tort Claims Act
"did not change the normal rule that an alleged failure or carelessness of public firemen does not create private actionable rights. Our analysis of the question is determined by what was said in the Feres case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2674. The Act, as was there stated, limited United States liability to 'the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.' 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Here, as there, there is no analogous liability; in fact, if anything is doctrinally sanctified in the law of torts it is the immunity of communities and other public bodies for injuries due to fighting fire."
Id. at 346 U. S. 43-44.
These two interpretive decisions have not caused Congress to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act. As a matter of fact, the catastrophe that gave rise to the Dalehite case was subsequently presented to Congress for legislative relief by way of compensation for the losses which resulted, as found by the trial court, partly from the negligence of the Coast Guard. Throughout the reports, discussion and enactment of the relief act, there was no effort to modify the Tort Claims Act so as to change the law, in any respect, as interpreted by this Court in Feres and Dalehite. [Footnote 2/6] Although its discussion was restricted solely to the discretionary function exception to the Act, Congress must have accepted the rulings relating to the issues here involved as in accord with its understanding of the Tort Claims Act. One cannot say that when a statute is interpreted by this Court we must follow that interpretation in subsequent cases unless Congress has amended the statute. On this, our cases conflict. [Footnote 2/7] However, we should continue to hold, as a matter of stare decisis and as the normal rule, that inaction of Congress, after a well known and important decision of common knowledge, is "an aid in statutory construction . . . useful at times in resolving statutory ambiguities." Helvering v. Reynolds, 313 U. S. 428, 313 U. S. 432. The nonaction of Congress should decide this controversy in the light of the previous rulings. The reasons which led to the conclusions against creating new and novel liabilities in the Feres and Dalehite cases retain their persuasiveness.
The Act made the Government liable in instances where it would be suable "if a private person." The meaning of "private person" is not discussed in the legislative history. In Feres, we talked of private liability and came to a conclusion which is contrary to that reached by the Court today. See pp. 350 U. S. 72-73, supra. We held that because surgeons in private practice or private landlords were liable for negligence did not mean the United States was. Liability of governments for the failure of lighthouse warning lights is as unknown to tort law as, for example, liability for negligence in fire fighting excluded by the Dalehite ruling. Lighthouse keeping is as uniquely a governmental function as fire fighting. There is at least some uncertainty and ambiguity as to what Congress meant by making the United States liable in circumstances where it would be liable "if a private person." That uncertainty should not lead us to accept liability for the United States in this case. In dealing with this enlarged concept of federal liability for torts, wisdom should dictate a cautious approach along the lines of Feres and Dalehite.
a result of negligence on the part of the employees of a city in the maintenance of traffic lights. [Footnote 2/8] Street traffic lights are a close analogy to navigation lights. We can see no reason to doubt that under Louisiana law the maintenance of navigation lights, if permissible, by municipalities would likewise be free of liability. The Court warns us against the morass of decisions that involve municipal tort liability. It calls that law a "quagmire" and avoids it by a complete surrender of sovereign immunity without regard to the law of municipal liability of the respective States.
The over-all impression from the majority opinion is that it makes the Government liable under the Act for negligence in the conduct of "any governmental activity on the operational level.'" It seems broad enough to cover all so-called "uniquely governmental activities." Logically it may cover negligence in firefighting, although the Dalehite holding on that point is not overruled. [Footnote 2/9] Perhaps liability arises even for injuries from negligence in pursuing criminals.
The Court's literal interpretation of this Act brings about an application of the Federal Tort Claims Act analogous to that condemned by Congress in the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 after Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U. S. 680, see 61 Stat. 84, § 1(a), and in the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949, 63 Stat. 910, after Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U. S. 446, see 2 U.S.Code Cong.Serv.1949, p. 1617. Compare United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534. The judgment should be affirmed.
"See also U.S. Coast Guard, Aids to Navigation Manual (CG-222, Jan. 1953), pp. 4-1, 4-3."
Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135; Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15.
Compare United States v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 298 U. S. 492, 298 U. S. 500; United States v. South Buffalo R. Co., 333 U. S. 771, 333 U. S. 775; Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U. S. 356, with Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106; Commissioner v. Church's Estate, 335 U. S. 632.
Edwards v. City of Shreveport, 66 So.2d 373; cf. Howard v. City of New Orleans, 159 La. 443, 105 So. 443.
But see footnote 4 of the majority opinion in which Workman v. New York City is cited.