Document: 406 U.S. 797 92 S.Ct. 1899 32 L.Ed.2d 499 Melvin LAIRD, Secretary of Defense, et al., Petitioners,v.Jim Nick NELMS al. No. 71—573. Argued April 17, 1972. Decided June 7, Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, See 93 95. Syllabus Damage from sonic boom caused by military planes, where no negligence was shown either in the planning or operation flight, is not actionable under Federal Tort Claims Act, which does authorize suit against Government on claims based strict absolute liability for ultrahazadous activity. Dalehite v. United States, 346 15, 73 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427. Pp. 798—803. 442 F.2d 1163, reversed. Richard B. Stone, Washington, D.C., petitioners. George E. Allen, Sr., respondents. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondents brought this action States District Court 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671—2680. They sought recovery property damage allegedly resulting a California-based planes flying over North Carolina training mission. The entered summary judgment petitioners, but respondents' appeal Appeals Fourth Circuit That court held that, although respondents had been unable to show 'either flight,' they were nonetheless entitled proceed theory ultrahazardous activities conducted petitioners their official capacities. relied its earlier Praylou, 4 Cir., 208 291 (1953), turn distinguished Court's holding 45, 972, 1427 (1953). We granted certiorari. 404 1037, 711, 30 728. 2 that liable extensive explosion two cargo vessels harbor Texas City, Texas, 1947. rejected various specifications part employees found case, and then went treat petitioners' claim absolutely strictly because having engaged dangerous said with respect aspect plaintiffs' claim: 3 '(T)he Act extend such situations, though course well known tort law generally. It be invoked only 'negligent wrongful act omission' an employee. Absolute liability, course, arises irrespective how tortfeasor conducts himself; it imposed automatically when any damages are sustained as result decision engage activity.' U.S., at 44, S.Ct., 972. This resolution strict-liability issue did question whether some other State recognize conduct activities. turned instead language permitted circumstances imposition upon there neither nor act. necessary consequence statutory omission employee Government,' uniform federal limitation types acts committed has consented sued. Regardless state characterization, itself precludes if form 'misfeasance nonfeasance,' Government. 5 least theoretically possible argue since discussing legislative history 'wrongful' could include kind trespass, courts early blasting cases plaintiff's sounded case trespass would within Act's waiver immunity. believe, however, more than one reason rejecting alternate basis governmental here. 6 notion plane high-altitude flight intrudes interest owner land flies Causby, 328 256, 66 1062, 90 1206 (1946). There Court, construing Air Commerce 1926, 44 Stat. 568, amended Civil Aeronautics 1938, 52 973, 49 § 401, said: 7 'It ancient doctrine common ownership extended periphery universe—Cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum. But place modern world. air public highway, Congress declared. 8 Were true, every transcontinental subject operator countless suits. Common sense revolts idea. To private airspace clog these highways, seriously interfere control development interest, transfer into just Claim.' 260—261, 1065. 9 Thus, quite apart what very likely insuperable problems proof connecting passage owner's space ensuing boom, version ruled out established law. Perhaps precise supra, skirted analogizing pressure wave characterizing concussion occasion accompanies blasting, treating striking actual direct intrusion pilot mold classical common-law trespass. 10 clear, presently prevailing view frankly conceded undertaking activity, rather attenuated Restatement Torts 519, 520(e); W. Prosser, Law 75 (4th ed. 1971). While leading discusses distinction between actions sounding decisions made, it, too, actually grounds he who engages activity must pay his way regardless precautions may have taken. Guilford Realty & Ins. Co. Blythe Bros. Co., 260 N.C. 69, 131 S.E.2d 900 (1963). 11 More importantly, considering cannot realistically dealt terms jurisprudential distinctions peculiar forms metaphysical subtleties crop up even contemporary discussions theory. 492—496. discussed indicates intended permit essentially intentionally careless employees, made according respondeat superior, exclude solely nature undertaken 12 A House Judiciary Committee memorandum explaining 'discretionary function' exemption bill first appeared draft legislation 1942 comment 'the covered subsection probably exempted . judicial construction' event, preclude possibility 13 'that construed growing legally authorized floodcontrol irrigation project, agent shown, ground contention same individual tortious ..' Hearings H.R. 5373 6463 before Judiciary, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., ser. 13, pp. 65—66 (1942). 14 memorandum, after noting erosion sovereign immunity years, observed generally: 15 'Yet large highly important area remains satisfactory remedy provided wrongs officers ordinary 'commonlaw' type tort, personal injury negligent automobile.' Id., 39. 16 subsumed making exemplified agents Hatahley 351 173, 181, 76 745, 751, 100 Liability broadened beyond intent dressing substance garments respondent here judicially admit back door legislatively away front door. do believe permits result. 17 Shortly Dalehite, facts City catastrophe presented effort obtain relief body. Congress, conducting hearings receiving reports, ultimately enacted granting compensation victims question. 69 707; H.R.Rep.No.2024, 83d Sess. (1954); S.Rep.No.2363, H.R.Rep.No.1305, 84th 1st (1955); H.R.Rep.No.1623, S.Rep.No.684, (1955). At time during modify construction Dalehite. Both stare decisis Congress' failure make change again reviewing subject, we regard principle enunciated controlling 18 Since instant erred reaching contrary conclusion. matter practice proper rely 291, clear latter permitting likewise inconsistent depend factual handling property, opposed operating instrument but, rather, determination sort Indeed, dissenting disagree conclusion majority point. 19 Our reaffirmation put makes unnecessary scope discretionary-function contained matters Appeals. 20 Reversed. 21 DOUGLAS, heard argument, withdrew participation consideration case. 22 STEWART, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 23 Under injuries persons 24 'caused while acting office employment, person, claimant accordance occurred.' 1346(b). 25 renders person creates thereby, finding challenged here.1 And involved falls numerous express exceptions coverage 2680,2 today reach issue. Rather, holds words application certain kinds conduct. In my view, justified plainly purpose. I therefore dissent. 26 vast torts, predicated breach legal duty owed defendant plaintiff, involves exercising reasonable care one's refraining altogether. most jurisdictions, imposes harm narrowly limited those prohibited actor exercised utmost care. Such 'tortious,' necessarily blameworthy, society so socially valuable should prohibited, nevertheless carries high risk others, absence negligence, good others thereby. generally F. Harper James, 785—795, 815 816 (1956); 442—496 27 encountered many situations law, enacted, nothing support alone, among all rules governing considered inapplicable arising Act. quoted relates exception 2680, specifically declines rely.3 As read history, phrase entire range classified law.4 sweeping expressly set forth now collected 2680.5 interpretation committees recommended 1946: 'The present establish system classes torts act.' (Emphasis supplied.) H.R.Rep. 1287, 79th 3; S.Rep.No.1400, 31. Peck, Stan.L.Rev. 433, 441—450 (1957). rests 1427, four-man dealing primarily exception, extremely unusual severely criticized;6 Court; general less year decided. 295. Moreover, represented approach abruptly changed years later Indian Towing 350 61, 122, 48. proposition immune 'governmental' 'proprietary'—a seemingly Dalehite.7 explicitly created presumption favor immunity, overcome relinquishment 'clear,' 30—31, 965, recognized 'cuts under' cautioned 'as self-constituted guardian Treasury import statute designed limit it.' 65, 126. also Rayonier, Inc. 352 315, 319—320, 77 374, 376—377, 354. These developments, together approving citation Praylou 319 n. 2, 377 until understood mean absolute-liability implicitly abandoned.8 29 rule announced seems me whole policy For applicable booms, citizens. debris dynamite example, overwhelming courts.9 detonates process building road thereby took practicable prevent injuries, sound hazard results. Yet exactly identical result, will not, today, injured party. Nothing compels lightly conclude create situation much odds basic rationale involving forest fire: payer relatively slight. burden party leave him destitute grievously harmed. could, apparently did, decide unfair benefits services performed employees.' 320, 377. reasons stated, hold applied occurs. dispositive precluded issue, shall briefly 31 No right lies 'based Government, due care, execution regulation, regulation valid, exercise performance perform discretionary function agency discretion abused.' 2680(a). 33 Assistant Attorney General testified committee indicated provision without it: 34 '(I)t embraced (a exception) construction. probable realm validity administrative action, (the bill) specific.' p. 29. 35 seemed say 'policy decision.' 36, 968. Decisions appeals following interpreted drawing 'policy' 'operational' decisions, falling outside exception.10 bedeviled attempted apply routine categories automobile accidents, need explore limits exception. 36 purpose avoid Executive, agencies second-guessed context actions.11 danger officials acted irresponsibly illegally. once creation booms determined applies, questions relate causation damages. Whether fly aircraft given altitude speed three times sound, level, propriety irrelevant thus apply. recoverable received considerable attention commentators, concluded recovery, conditions. See, e.g., Note, J.Air 596, 602—605 (1966); 39 Tulane L.Rev. 145 (1964); Comment, So.Cal.L.Rev. 259, 266—274 (1958); 516 5, infra. refers fragment 'wrongful act' used 1346(b) refer trespasses. cited consisting statement Special hearing, merely suggested example word 'negligence' reach. observes, applying speak 'trespass.' (1963); Enos Coal Mining Schuchart, 243 Ind. 692, 188 N.E.2d Whitney Ralph Myers Contracting Corp., 146 W.Va. 130, 118 622 (1961). similarity theories leads 'trespass' intended, assumes, 'trespasses' think logically lead covered. passed Senate employees. S.2221, substituted omission,' saying 'committee prefers afford omissions negligent.' 2245, 11. carried finally 1946, further mention reports provisions chapter section title to— '(a) Any abused. '(b) loss, miscarriage, transmission letters postal matter. '(c) assessment collection tax customs duty, detention goods merchandise officer excise lawenforcement officer. '(d) sections 741 752, 781—790 Title 46, relating suits admiralty States. '(e) administering 1—31 50, Appendix. '(f) establishment quarantine '(g) Repealed. '(h) assault, battery, false imprisonment, arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, interference contract rights. '(i) fiscal operations monetary system. '(j) combatant naval forces, Coast Guard, war. '(k) foreign country. '(l) Tennessee Valley Authority. '(m) Panama Canal Company. '(n) bank, intermediate credit bank cooperatives.' 433 (1957); Jacoby, Fed.Bar.J. 139 860 (1956). Four members dissented, amend taken indicating approval 74, 129. 6, 435; 140; 266 56; Dostal, Aviation Fed.Bar J. 165, 177 (1964). Whitman Hotel Corp. Elliott Watrous Eng. 137 Conn. 562, 79 A.2d 591 (1951); Louden Cincinnati, Ohio St. 144, 106 N.E. 970 (1914); Thigpen Skousen Hise, 64 N.M. 290, 327 P.2d 802 Wallace A. H. Guion 237 S.C. 349, 117 359 (1960); 3, supra. 514 'Congress aware losses charged treasury effect spread contribute financially each tax- Eastern Lines Union Trust 95 U.S.App.D.C. 189, 221 62, aff'd, 907, 192, 796; Fair 234 288; Hendry 418 774. thorough discussion 'policy/operational' developed, see Reynolds, Discretionary Function Exception 57 Geo.L.J. 81 (1968). behind explained commentator follows: '(A)lmost contends ills operations. one, instance, suggests injurious political blunders unwise tariff duties premature lifting OPA controls. separation powers our government decent judiciary co-ordinate branches reluctant sit wisdom reasonableness executive action. particularly suited pursue examinations judgment.' 'Discretionary Function' Exception: Sluggish Retreat Ancient Immunity, U.Fla.L.Rev. 184

Category: 7