# Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 21, 2011 · 658 F.3d 402

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484779

## Case

- **Full name:** Peter TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 21, 2011
- **Citations:** 658 F.3d 402; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19324; 2011 WL 4379353
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Niemeyer
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, King, Shedd
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484779

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the direct control factor did not implicate the political question doctrine because the explicit terms of the LOGCAP Statement of Work made KBR responsible for the physical safety of workers and servicemembers that might come into contact with the hazards presented by …
- concluding that contributory negligence defense would “invariably require the Court to decide whether the Marines made a reasonable decision,” and therefore raised a political question (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)
- holding that a nonjusticiable issue is introduced when contributory negligence is based on the plaintiffs disregard of an earlier military decision
- affirming ruling that negligence claim was nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine and vacating as moot accompanying ruling that claim was preempted by the FTCA combatant activities exception
- holding that defense of contributory negligence would implicate sensitive military judgment regarding power generation

## Opinion text

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
For the reasons stated both in Judge King’s opinion and in my opinion in Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc., 658 F.3d 413 (4th Cir.2011), I believe the political question doctrine requires dismissal of this case. I also believe that federal preemption, as articulated by Judge Shedd’s opinion and by our decision in Al Shimari , supports dismissal of this case. As a result, I concur in both Judge King’s opinion and Judge Shedd’s opinion with respect to federal preemption, thus providing alternative grounds for the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484779. Public record. Not legal advice.