stating that, as in all other cases in which the Federal Government claims immunity from suit in tort, when the performance of a uniquely governmental function gave rise to the claimed harm, the court must simply determine "whether a private person would be responsible for similar negligence under the laws of the State where the acts occurred"
How later courts described this case
- stating that, as in all other cases in which the Federal Government claims immunity from suit in tort, when the performance of a uniquely governmental function gave rise to the claimed harm, the court must simply determine "whether a private person would be responsible for similar negligence under the laws of the State where the acts occurred"
- stating that a court must determine “whether a private person would be responsible for similar negligence under the laws of the State where the acts occurred”
- declaring, in non -Feres case, “There is no justification for this Court to read exemptions into the [FTCA] beyond those provided by Congress. If the Act is to be altered that is a function for the same body that adopted it.”
- rejecting argument that the federal government’s liability should be determined by the liability of state and local firefighters
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Reed,
with whom Mr. Justice Clark joins,
dissenting.
The Court of Appeals in my view correctly applied the law as to public fire fighters. Congress assumed liability “as a private individual under like circumstances.” The immunity of public bodies for injuries due to fighting fire was then well settled. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 43 . Private organizations, except as community volunteers, for fire fighting were hardly known. The situation was like private military forces. Cf. Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135, 142 . Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61 , presents a different situation.