Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation

Last updated
Boyle v. United Techs. Corp.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 1987
Reargued April 27, 1988
Decided June 27, 1988
Full case nameBoyle v. United Technologies Corporation
Docket no. 86-492
Citations487 U.S. 500 ( more )
108 S. Ct. 2510; 101 L. Ed. 2d 442; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2880;
Argument Oral argument
Reargument Reargument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior
Holding
Government contractors are immune from liability for design defects in military equipment
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Kennedy
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
DissentStevens
Laws applied
Federal common law

Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, 487 U.S. 500 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that government contractors are immune from liability for design defects in military equipment.

Contents

It came from a 1986 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversing a jury verdict for Boyle on the grounds that government contractors are immune from liability for design defects in military equipment.

Background

David A. Boyle was a helicopter pilot in the United States Marine Corps. In 1983, his helicopter crashed in a training exercise off the coast of Virginia Beach. [1] Boyle survived the impact but could not escape due to a design flaw that blocked the co-pilot's access to the escape hatch when one of the control sticks was pulled fully up. [2] Boyle's family sued the manufacturer of the helicopter under a theory of common law tort products liability. The jury awarded Boyle's family $725,000.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the jury award for Boyle, finding as a matter of law that military contractors are immune from liability under the newly-recognized military contractor defense. The Fourth Circuit formulated a four-part defense:

"[a] military contractor can escape liability for a design defect if it can demonstrate that 1) the United States is immune from liability; 2) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications for the equipment; 3) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and 4) the supplier warned the United States about dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States." [2]

Other Courts of Appeal had adopted similar formulations of the defense. [3] This defense was recognized for the first time in the Fourth Circuit in a separate Fourth Circuit decision released the same day as Boyle, also involving a military training incident. The Fourth Circuit extended immunity to military contractors based on the already-established government contractor defense, which precluded liability when contractors were acting under the direction and authority of the United States. [4]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a 5–4 opinion vacating and remanding the Fourth Circuit's decision. Justice Scalia grounded the decision in federal common law, arguing that military contracting is an area of "uniquely federal interest" which requires federal preemption of state tort law. [1] Justice Scalia recounted two other areas of law of "uniquely federal interest." First, contracts involving the United States (citing Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States ), and second, civil liability of federal officials for actions taken in the scope of their duty. Like federal officials carrying out their duties, military contractors designing equipment "implicat[es] the same interest in getting the Government's work done." [1] Justice Scalia also noted that increased costs from civil liability will be "passed through, substantially if not totally, to the United States itself. . . ."

The Court settled on a three-part test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to military contractor liability.

"(1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the United States." [1]

Because the Fourth Circuit's decision was unclear whether a reasonable jury could have found for Boyle under the properly formulated defense, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the Fourth Circuit.

Brennan's dissent

Justice William Brennan authored a dissenting opinion. The dissent strongly criticized the majority's opinion for judicial policymaking and stretching precedent.

Government contractor liability was first established in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction , involving suits against a private contractor following the erosion of a dam it built for the government. Brennan emphasized that Yearsley involved the takings clause and that the plaintiffs still had a cause of action against the government. Brennan also emphasized that in Yearsley, the contractor was "following, not formulating, the Government's specifications." [1]

Brennan also criticized the majority's use of the Federal Tort Claims Act's "discretionary function" exception to justify the military contractor immunity doctrine. In United States v. Gilman the court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not contain an implied right of indemnity for the United States even where the financial burden would be significant.

Brennan also argued the majority's standard would allow "perhaps no more than a rubber stamp from a federal procurement officer who might or might not have noticed or cared about the defects, or even had the expertise to discover them." [1]

Stevens' dissent

Justice Stevens wrote a separate dissent to criticize the majority's decision as judicial policymaking. [1]

Impact

The decision has been widely criticized by scholars and academics. Many academics noted the inconsistency between Boyle and textualism, a method of interpretation championed by Justice Scalia. [5] [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William J. Brennan Jr.</span> U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1956 to 1990

William Joseph Brennan Jr. was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1956 to 1990. He was the seventh-longest serving justice in Supreme Court history, and was known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Fourth Amendment itself despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied by the importance of the right violated.

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case decided in 1953, which saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power. The US Supreme Court confirmed that "the privilege against revealing military secrets ... is well established in the law of evidence".

Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the extent to which the United States Postal Service has sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court ruled that an exception to the FTCA that barred liability for the "negligent transmission of mail" did not apply to a claim for injuries caused when someone tripped over mail left by a USPS employee. Instead, the exception only applied to damage caused to the mail itself or that resulted from its loss or delay.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a serviceman could not file a tort action against the federal government even though the government secretly administered doses of LSD to him as part of an experimental program, because his injuries were found by the lower court to be service-related.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against Muslim men detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.

<i>Schillinger v. United States</i> 1894 United States Supreme Court case

Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.

Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2002), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that a state voluntarily waives at least part of its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction. There has subsequently been a "circuit split" in federal courts regarding whether a state waives immunity from liability or only a federal forum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court barred the widow of a serviceman killed while piloting a helicopter on a United States Coast Guard rescue mission from bringing her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The decision was based upon the Supreme Court's holding in Feres v. United States (1950): "[T]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service."

<i>Doe v. Unocal Corp.</i>

Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.

Susan L. Burke is an American lawyer noted for her work to reform the military system of prosecuting rape and assault and in representing plaintiffs suing the American military or military contractors, such as the Abtan v. Blackwater case. She represented former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison in a suit against interrogators and translators from CACI and Titan Corp. who were tasked with obtaining military intelligence from them during their detention. Her work was featured in the documentaries The Invisible War and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In 2015, the National Law Journal named Burke one of the top 75 female attorneys in the nation.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 563 U.S. 478 (2011), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State Secrets Privilege prevented the plaintiff from using the evidence it needed to protect itself from an expensive judgement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988</span>

The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, also known as the Westfall Act, is a law passed by the United States Congress that modifies the Federal Tort Claims Act to protect federal employees from common law tort lawsuit while engaged in their duties for the government, while giving private citizens a route to seek damage from the government for violations. The law was passed in response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 (1988), which had created a precedent that left federal employees open to liability to civil suits for actions they took while performing their duties for the government.

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991(TVPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, applies exclusively to natural persons and does not impose liability against any organizational entity.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 https://casetext.com/case/boyle-v-united-technologies-corp-2?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&tab=keyword Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S. Ct. 2510 (1988)
  2. 1 2 https://casetext.com/case/boyle-v-united-technologies-corp?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&tab=keyword Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 792 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1986)
  3. ↑ "Shaw v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 778 F.2d 736 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com.
  4. ↑ "Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d 403 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com.
  5. ↑ Gluck, Abbe R. (June 2011). "Intersystemic Statutory Interpretation: Methodology as "Law" and the Erie Doctrine" (PDF). Yale L.J. 120 (8): 1898. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  6. ↑ Zeppos, Nicholas J. (October 1990). "Legislative History and the Interpretation of Statutes: Toward a Fact-Finding Model of Statutory Interpretation". Va. L. Rev. 76 (7): 1295–1374. doi:10.2307/1073238. JSTOR   1073238 . Retrieved 27 October 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.