Laird v. Nelms

Background

Respondents are landowners in North Carolina who sued after property damage they say was caused by a sonic boom from United States military planes flying training missions from California. They brought their claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the federal law that allows some lawsuits against the United States. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Government, but the Fourth Circuit reversed and allowed the owners to proceed on a theory of strict (absolute) liability for ultrahazardous activities.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Federal Tort Claims Act permits holding the United States strictly liable for ultrahazardous activities like sonic booms, even when no negligence by government employees is shown. The Court relied on its prior decision in Dalehite, reasoning that the Act waives immunity only for harms caused by a government employee’s negligent or wrongful act or omission. The Court rejected attempts to reframe strict liability as a trespass claim, citing earlier rulings that airspace is a public highway and noting that Congress intended liability tied to wrongful or careless employee conduct. The Court therefore reversed the Fourth Circuit and refused to allow strict‑liability suits under the Act. The Court did not decide whether other statutory exceptions, such as the ‘‘discretionary function’’ defense, apply.

Real world impact

As reaffirmed here, property owners cannot recover from the United States under the Act on a strict‑liability theory for sonic‑boom damage; they must show a negligent or wrongful act by a government employee. The decision leaves other defenses and factual issues for later cases, so some claims may still proceed on different legal theories.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented, arguing the Act’s language and history cover state rules of absolute liability and that the Government should be liable where state law so provides.