Suits over DCA disaster will struggle to overcome discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity

View on my approach to DCA on a 2020 Southwest flight.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Media coverage of the air disaster at Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) is moving on to prospective litigation, and abundant news outlets are warning aptly that the road to compensation for victims' families will not be smooth.

Potential defendants include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which employs air traffic controllers; the U.S. military, which owned and crewed the Black Hawk helicopter in the crash, and American Airlines, which bears responsibility for the regional jet in the crash.

As the facts have shaken out thus far, with black-box content yet to be reported at the time of this writing, it's hard to see any fault on the part of American Airlines or its commercial operator. The plane had banked to change runways per traffic control instructions and was on a lesser used but still ordinary approach when it collided with the Black Hawk. There's likely nothing the pilots could have done to avoid the collision, if they even saw it coming.

Responsibility on the part of air traffic control has focused on the fact that one controller was managing both helicopter and plane traffic, while sometimes there are two. Thus far, though, one- or two-person staffing of the two traffic streams seems to be a choice of practice, based on the volume of traffic, rather than a violation of any rule.

Early armchair analysis points to responsibility on the part of the military. The helicopter seems to have been above 300 feet, for reasons unknown, when it was required to be at or below 200 feet. The pilot said he saw the plane and would avoid it, though it's not clear he saw the right plane. 

My cousin is a military pilot and has flown in this dense D.C. thicket, inset from SkyVector (DCA). He told me that avoiding flight paths entirely would be prohibitive, but that following the 200' rule should have averted collision even if the pilot mistook the approach of the plane.

With government defendants in the sights of plaintiff lawyers, frantic analysis is no doubt underway in an attempt to circumnavigate federal sovereign immunity.  Within the statutory framework of sovereign immunity, the concept of "discretionary function immunity" looms large in this case. Some time back, I recorded a video for SCOTUSbrief about a case in which discretionary function immunity figured, if collateral to a problem of a federal agency that doesn't have it. Here, the defendants do.

The instant case, such as it is as yet, is reminiscent of United States v. Varig Airlines (U.S. 1984), in which, in 1973, a fire on board a trans-Atlantic Boeing 707 flight killed 123. The plaintiffs blamed in part the FAA, alleging negligence in the issuance of a safety certificate.  The Supreme Court held unanimously that the FAA was shielded by discretionary function immunity.

The purpose of discretionary function immunity—which is really an exception to waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act—is to preclude the courts from second-guessing policy determinations by the political branches of government. The government is willing to concede liability when it negligently deviates from obligatory practices, the logic goes, but claimants ought not be able to challenge policy choices just because they turned out to be bad ones, that is, resulted in injury.

The DCA crash reminded me of an excellent article from seven years ago on sovereign immunity and discretionary function, discussing Varig, in Advocate magazine, by L.A. attorney Steven B. Stevens. He parsed the doctrine.

If the use of only one air traffic controller is indeed customary and not contrary to any rule, then probably that's a staffing decision shielded against liability as discretionary function. The military might be vulnerable, though, on the issue of the Black Hawk's altitude. The 200' limit is an FAA rule for the Potomac-DCA corridor, CNN reported, and my cousin confirmed.

Even upon circumvention of immunity, plaintiffs will have to prove the usual negligence elements of unreasonable carelessness and causation with the crash. Black-box data will help, and plaintiffs might as well avail of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. "RIL" can afford plaintiffs a favorable inference when evidence, such as the pilot's motive, is unascertainable, and plane crashes, historically, have been fertile ground for invocation of the rule.

All that said, litigation against the government might never reach an immunity determination. Reuters reported on the history of limited government settlements in such cases.

As a frequent traveler to DCA, I hope that the airport can be made safer while preserving convenient access to the capital.

Court denies police immunity under state tort claims act in death of intoxicated man in protective custody

Michael Coghlan CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

In a lawsuit over the death of an intoxicated man in police protective custody, the defendants were not entitled to immunity under exceptions to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), the Commonwealth Appeals Court held in April.

Police in New Bedford, Mass., took the plaintiff's decedent into protective custody upon finding him in a state of heavy intoxication and disturbing the peace. Police put the man in a county jail cell, where he got into an altercation with another detainee. The other detainee pushed the man to the ground, where he hit his head. The man died from complications of the injury.

Defendant officials sought immunity from the plaintiff's negligence lawsuit under the discretionary function exception to the MTCA, section 10(b), and under the causation limitation of MTCA section 10(j).

Section 10(b) is similar to the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. It disallows tort claims when public defendants exercise policy-making discretion, even when discretion is abused. The theory behind this exception is that public officials require latitude to make decisions, good and bad, and not every government decision should be second-guessed in litigation. The tort claims act reserves for litigation cases in which standards of conduct are set or clear, and the plaintiff alleges negligence relative to that standard.

The court denied defendants discretionary function immunity, because state law provides that persons in protective custody should be held at police stations, referred to appropriate care facilities, or returned home. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent's commitment to the county jail was improper and proximately caused the injury and death. Police had no discretion under the law to detain the decedent in the county jail.

MTCA section 10(j) is a creature specially of commonwealth law and articulates a potent liability limitation arising in causation. Section 10(j) disallows liability for 

any claim based on an act or failure to act to prevent or diminish the harmful consequences of a condition or situation, including the violent or tortious conduct of a third person, which is not originally caused by the public employer or any other person acting on behalf of the public employer.

Thus, state defendants disavow liability under section 10(j) when the plaintiff's liability theory is in the nature of a failure to supervise or intervene, and the more proximate cause of the injury is the conduct of a third party. Here, the defense pointed to the push to the ground by the decedent's fellow detainee, if not the decedent's own provocation.

The court also denied the defendants 10(j) immunity. The official act relevant to the plaintiff's claim was the decision to place the decedent in a county jail cell with potentially dangerous detainees, the court opined, not the precise mechanism of injury that ensued.

The case is Baptista v. Bristol County Sheriff's Department, Nos. 20-P-731 & 20-P-778 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 15, 2022). Justice Peter J. Rubin wrote the opinion of the unanimous panel.

Advocates in SCOTUS case on tort and sovereign immunity stick to their guns, frustrate Court's search for middle ground

For the Federalist Society SCOTUScast podcast series, I recorded a commentary on the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, which occurred in January.  You can read more about Thacker, and see an excellent video the Federalist Society produced, via my January 18 blog entry.

The Tennessee River dips into northern Alabama, where the accident in

Thacker occurred. (Map by Shannon1, CC BY-SA 4.0).

Here is background on the case from the Federalist Society:

On January 14, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a case involving a dispute over the “discretionary-function exception” to waivers of federal sovereign immunity.

In 2013, Anthony Szozda and Gary and Venida Thacker were participating in a fishing tournament on the Tennessee River. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had a crew near the river, trying to raise a downed power line that had partially fallen into the river instead of crossing over it. The crew attempted to lift the conductor out of the water concurrent with Szozda and the Thackers passing through the river at a high rate of speed. The conductor struck both Thacker and Szozda, causing serious injury to Thacker and killing Szozda. The Thackers sued TVA for negligence. The district court dismissed the Thackers’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment.  Although the act creating the TVA waives sovereign immunity from tort suits, the Court held that the waiver does not apply where the TVA was engaged in governmental functions that were discretionary in nature. 

Applying a test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Court determined that the TVA’s challenged conduct fell within this “discretionary-function exception” here, and immunity therefore applied.

The Supreme Court granted the Thackers’ subsequent petition for certiorari to address whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in using a discretionary-function test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than the test set forth in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr, when testing the immunity of governmental “sue and be sued” entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) from the plaintiffs’ claims.

Counsel for Thacker and counsel for TVA stuck to their guns in the oral argument.  Thacker's position was to interpret the "may sue and be sued" language that governs the TVA and other New Deal authorities to be broadly permissive of tort suits, stopping only to preclude "grave interference" with the executive branch prerogative.  The TVA meanwhile insisted that it is entitled to a broad discretionary function immunity, like that which Congress built into the later enacted Federal Tort Claims Act.

Questions from the Court tried to pull both counselors toward the possible middle ground of a sovereign immunity for governmental functions and not for commercial functions.  But neither counsel was willing to bite.  That led to a lively oral argument.  Thacker's case seems the stronger, but it is unclear how the Court will get to either result.

SCOTUS ponders governmental immunity in boating accident suit against TVA

The Federalist Society produced a beautifully illustrated video, as part the SCOTUSbrief series, to accompany the January 14 oral argument (transcript) in the U.S. Supreme Court in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a personal injury suit.  The case compels the Court to analyze what, if any, governmental immunity is afforded to a range of New Deal entities, such as the TVA, which Congress broadly authorized "to sue and be sued," decades before the Federal Tort Claims Act came into being.  The Federalist Society generously invited me to provide narration for this video.  At SCOTUSblog, Professor Gregory Sisk, of St. Thomas Law, has an expert analysis of Monday's oral argument.  When available, audio of the oral argument will be posted at Oyez and at C-Span.