|
Boyle
v United Technologies
S. Ct 487 US 500 [1988]
Author:- Sam
Biers
Defenses:
Govt/Govt Contractor Immunity
Relevant
Facts: David Boyle was a marine helicopter co-pilot, killed when
the helicopter he was flying crashed of the coast of VA during a
training exercise. He survived the crash, but was unable to
escape from the helicopter and drowned. The manufacturer
Sikorsky designed the copilot’s emergency escape system
where the hatch opened out rather than in, and access to the
hatch handle was obstructed by other equipment.
Legal
Issue(s): Whether Sikorsky Helicopters could be held liable,
under state tort law, involving an injury resulting from a
defective design of the escape hatch as a “military defense
contractor?”
Court’s
Holding: No
Procedure:
Jury verdict for Pl; Ct of App REVERSED and remanded judgment for
DF; S. Ct AFFIRMED.
Law
or Rule(s): Displacement of state laws or regulations
by federal regulations or law will occur only where a ‘significant
conflict’ exists between an identifiable ‘federal
policy or interest and the operation of state law’ or the
application of state law would frustrate specific objectives of
federal legislation.
Court
Rationale: The Fed Tort Claims Act, is a statutory provision that
suggests the outline for ‘significant conflict,’
between federal interests and state law in the context of Govt
procurement. It includes an exception to the consent to sue the
govt or its employees when a claim is based on the exercise or
failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty.
The selection of the appropriate design for military equipment to
be used by the Armed Forces is assuredly a discretionary
function. The imposition of liability on Govt contractors will
directly affect the terms of Govt contracts: either the
contractor will decline to manufacture the design or it will
raise the price. Either way the interests of the U.S. will
be directly affected. A State law which holds Govt
contractors liable for design defects in military equipment does
in some circumstances present a ‘significant conflict’
with federal policy and must be displaced. Liability for
design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed pursuant
to state law, when 1) the US approved reasonably precise
specifications; 2) the equipment conformed to those
specifications; and 3) the supplier warned the US about the
dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the
supplier but not to the US. The 3rd condition is
necessary b/c in its absence the displacement of state law would
create some incentive for the manufacturer to withhold knowledge
of risks.
Plaintiff’s
Argument: In the absence of legislation specifically immunizing
Govt contractors from liability for design defects, there is no
basis for judicial recognition of such a defense.
Defendant’s
Argument: Govt contractors are shielded from state tort liability
as an employee of the Govt exercising discretionary functions.
|
