Opinion ID: 508926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Private Liability Requirement of the Tort Claims Act

Text: 12 At the outset the government relies upon the private liability requirement that derives from section 1346(b) of Title 28. This provides that federal courts have jurisdiction over actions involving claims against the United States for 13 the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 14 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b). The Tort Claims Act further provides that the government shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2674. 15 We reject the government's argument that, as a threshold matter, the Act does not apply when the government is engaged in a core governmental function. Brief for Appellee at 23. Very few decisions even mention the Act's private liability requirement and we have found no decisions that rely solely on such requirement or any core governmental function doctrine in holding the government immune from suit. See United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 153, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 1853, 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1962) (Whether a claim could be made out would depend upon whether a private individual under like circumstances would be liable under state law ...); Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 319, 77 S.Ct. 374, 376, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957) (the test ... is whether a private person would be responsible for similar negligence under the laws of the State where the acts occurred.); Arvanis v. Noslo Engineering Consultants, Inc., 739 F.2d 1287, 1292 (7th Cir.1984) (In the absence of any persuasive analogy with private conduct, we conclude that appellants cannot maintain a Tort Claims action against the United States.); Gelley v. Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 182, 185 (D.Minn.1979) (Regulatory activity engaged in by FDA personnel simply has no counterpart in private activity and thus cannot give rise to liability ...), aff'd, 610 F.2d 558, 563 (8th Cir.1979). Most cases simply quote the private liability requirement of section 1346(b) and then proceed to rely upon the Act's discretionary function exception. See, e.g., United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines ), 467 U.S. 797, 808, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2761, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984). The Supreme Court recently rejected the government's core governmental function argument in Berkovitz v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988). Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, commented that the government's core governmental function argument appears to replicate precisely the position expressly rejected in Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 64-65, 76 S.Ct. 122, 124-125, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955), and Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 318-19, 77 S.Ct. 374, 376-77, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957). Berkovitz, --- U.S. at ---- n. 5, 108 S.Ct. at 1960 n. 5. Furthermore, as set forth in the margin, courts have imposed liability on the United States in many situations in which the government was engaged in activities that have no analogy in the private sector. 2 16 The district court concluded that the private liability requirement merely establishes the foundation for and is largely congruent with the discretionary function exception to the Act, and therefore the court did not consider the private liability requirement separately. 665 F.Supp. at 719. The government argues that the private liability requirement is both a logical prerequisite to a consideration of the Act's exceptions and an independent basis upon which to affirm the district court's dismissal in this case. Brief for Appellee at 15 n. 9. However, there are very few decisions that even discuss the private liability requirement, see supra note 2, and we have found none that rely solely on it to hold the government immune from suit. Therefore, we reject the government's reliance on the private liability requirement. Instead we rely solely upon the discretionary function or duty exception, infra. 17