Fortney v. United States

Background

People injured by an explosion at an Army munitions plant sued the United States under a federal law that allows suits against the Government for negligence. They said the Army failed to follow a safety manual rule, §20.4, which limited certain containers. After a bench trial the District Court entered judgment for the Government and found, based on expert testimony, that the Army’s use of “nonconductive” containers did not violate §20.4. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that judgment. The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of the Court’s recent decision in Berkovitz v. United States.

Reasoning

The central question the Court asked the lower court to reexamine was whether the Army safety manual contained a specific mandatory instruction that would remove the Government’s usual legal protection. In Berkovitz the Court said that breaking a specific mandatory rule is not covered by the Government’s discretionary-protection defense. The Supreme Court’s order tells the appeals court to decide whether §20.4 qualifies as that kind of mandatory directive under Berkovitz so the claim can be judged under the correct standard.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is procedural: the case is returned to the appeals court for further factual and legal review rather than ending the dispute. The injured people have no final victory yet; the outcome could change depending on whether a safety rule was actually broken. The order is not a final decision on the merits and could be reversed or altered on further consideration.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by three colleagues, dissented from the Court’s order. He argued the remand was pointless because the trial court already found no violation of §20.4 and because an alternative rule (§12.33) was not clearly presented to this Court; he would have denied review.