Aretz v. United States

Decision Date23 June 1977
Docket Number1165 to 1169,1222 to 1235 and 1161.,1163,1162,Civ. A. No. 1158,1159
Citation503 F. Supp. 260
PartiesEleanore Higginbotham ARETZ, Thomas F. Aretz, Carolyn W. Roberson, Josephine Walker, Jean Marie Thomas, Rubynell Cox, Harriett Perry, Laura Pinkney, Mrs. Bonny Chapman, George E. Sullivan et al., John Hill, Jr., Herman Costello Roberts et al., Harold Anderson, Shirley A. Overstreet, Malissa James Hutchinson, Ethel Lee Fields, Shirley Albertie, Leon W. Key, Henry Bateman, Claudia Mae Jacobs, Anna L. Roberts, Lille B. Johnson, Willie Mae Parland, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Flossie Marie MASSEY, Ruby Mae Anderson, Tyrone Black, Angie L. Brown, Deloris Mae Butler, Mary Lee Chance, Lydia Cobbs, Noami A. Cooper, Luberdia Davis, Lillis Dawson, Leiler Gaines, Murriell Glover, Henry Lee Haywood, Nadine Hopkins, Juanita O. Livingston, Willie M. Rainey, Eliza Rudolph, Alean Small, Ida Bell Smith, Ernie Steele, Lucille Washington, Carolyn Waye, Claude Way, Hennette Way, Loretta Williams, Jimmie L. Alberta, Albert Austell, Noah Banks, William Booth, Louis Burch, Tony Burch, a Minor, By Next Friend Louis Burch, Vercie Campbell, Leroy Dawson, Mildred Ellis, Sam E. Fuller, Vera Jackson, Promes Life, Jerome Lucas, James Rauls, Rodney Rauls, a Minor, By Next Friend James Rauls, Mack Taylor, and Dolly Young, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Frank P. Brannen, Savannah, Ga., for plaintiffs.

Edmund A. Booth, Jr., Augusta, Ga., Darci L. Rock, Trial Atty., Torts Branch, Civ. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

LAWRENCE, Chief Judge.

                                                      INDEX
                   PART ONE                                                                Page
                     (1) OUTLINE OF CASE ..............................................   264-265
                     (2) THE THIOKOL CONTRACT AND GOVERNMENT
                         PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES .......................................   265-268
                     (3) THE TRIP FLARE FACILITY BEFORE
                         THE EXPLOSION ................................................   268-269
                     (4) ILLUMINANT PRODUCTION PROCESS ................................   271-272
                     (5) BLACK WEDNESDAY AT WOODBINE ..................................   272-273
                     (6) THE FACILITY: AFTER THE EXPLOSION
                         (THE THIOKOL INVESTIGATION) ..................................   273-275
                     (7) DOD SAFETY STANDARDS .........................................   275-277
                     (8) THE CLASSIFYING OF ILLUMINANTS ...............................   277-279
                     (9) DISSIDENT VOICES .............................................   279-280
                    (10) THE 1968 THIOKOL (WASATCH) TESTS .............................   280-281
                    (11) THE ROLFE REPORT
                         BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENSE ..................................   281
                    (12) CLASS 2 UPGRADED IN THE CASE OF VARIOUS
                         PYROTECHNIC COMPOSITIONS .....................................   281-282
                
                   PART ONE                                                                Page
                    (13) FAILURE TO NOTIFY THIOKOL OF THE DECISION
                         TO UPGRADE DECISION ..........................................   282-284
                    (14) CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
                         (A) Plaintiffs' ..............................................   284
                         (B) Defendant's ..............................................   284
                    (15) THE LAW: A CONSPECTUS
                         (a) Thiokol's Status as an Independent Contractor and
                             the Legal Consequences thereof in this Case ..............   285-286
                         (b) The Discretionary Function Exception .....................   286-288
                         (c) Liability of Employers Contracting with Independent
                             Contractors for Inherently Dangerous Work ................   288-289
                         (d) Proximate Cause ..........................................   290
                   PART TWO
                    (16) WAS THE UNITED STATES NEGLIGENT? .............................   290-293
                    (17) WAS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT A
                         PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION? ............................   293
                         (A) NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THIOKOL AS
                             INTERVENING EFFICIENT CAUSE
                             OF EXPLOSION .............................................   293-297
                         (B) WOULD THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN SAFETY
                             STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE CLASS 7
                             DESIGNATION HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED
                             BEFORE THE EXPLOSION IF THIOKOL HAD
                             BEEN TIMELY NOTIFIED OF THE ARMY'S
                             RECLASSIFICATION? ........................................   297-299
                   PART THREE
                    FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                      I. FINDINGS OF FACT .............................................   299-301
                     II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...........................................   301-303
                
OPINION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PART ONE

(1)

OUTLINE OF CASE

These Federal Tort Claim actions have resulted from the fire and explosion which occurred at the Woodbine, Georgia plant of Thiokol Chemical Corporation on February 3, 1971.

Thiokol was engaged in the manufacture, under contract with the Army, of trip flares which were used by the military during the war in Viet Nam as an aid to troops subjected to attack at night. The flares are ignited by pulling the trip or cutting of the trip wire. A bright flame is emitted which lights up a considerable area.

On February 3, 1971, around 60 employees of Thiokol were working in or near Building M-132 in which the flares were produced. At 10:53 A.M. a fire broke out at the "first fire" addition station in the facility. The loose illuminant material (magnesium and sodium nitrate) burns at a speed measured in milliseconds and reaches very high temperatures. The fire ran down the ignition pellet assembly line and eventually got into the cure room where 8,000 pounds of loose illuminants were being cured in trays. Also in the curing room were 56,322 candles containing approximately 0.3 pounds of illuminant each; 18,472 ignition pellets, and 100 pounds of first fire and intermediate mix.

An enormous pressure built up as the result of the deflagration of the illuminants. The fire culminated in an explosion in the cure room that destroyed the building. Twenty-nine employees lost their lives. More than fifty other employees were injured. The amounts sought by the plaintiffs aggregate $717,526,391.

The action against the United States by the injured employees and representatives of deceased employees is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and §§ 2680 et seq. In many instances Thiokol Chemical Corporation (hereafter Thiokol) was named as a party defendant along with the United States. The Company was covered by workmen's compensation insurance and its carrier paid the many claims in accordance with the Georgia Act. That statute provides the exclusive remedy against an employer of an employee injured in the course of his employment. The Negro plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that the average-weekly-earnings basis of computing compensation payments discriminates against low income employees in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That contention was denied on December 21, 1973. Thiokol was dismissed as a defendant. See Massey et al. v. Thiokol Chemical Corporation and United States, 368 F.Supp. 668 (S.D., Ga.).

After extended discovery, the case was tried on the liability issue alone at a trial which lasted approximately three weeks during June, July and August, 1974. The record in this case is over 7,500 pages long. It includes pleadings, interrogatories and answers, depositions, reports, photographs, manuals, drawings, treatises, films and many other materials.

There is no transcript of the testimony with the exception of that of one witness. Apparently a transcript of the trial was not ordered by counsel. However, most of the witnesses had given lengthy depositions. They were introduced in evidence and are before the Court as a part of the record. The tapes of the testimony of other witnesses are available. I have listened to relevant parts of the recordings of what witnesses, previously not deposed, testified to at the trial. Unfortunately, the testimony of one of the Government witnesses, Dr. Francis R. Taylor, was not recorded. The failure was apparently due to malfunction of the machine or to some error by the Reporter who is now deceased. He took no stenographic notes of the evidence. The pretrial depositions do not vary in any material way from what is found in the depositions. As I recall, no effort was made by counsel for either side to question such witnesses as to any disparity.

(2)

THE THIOKOL CONTRACT AND GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES

(A)

Early in the 1960's Thiokol established a plant at Woodbine, Georgia. One segment of its widespread business activities was known as the Aerospace Group. For some years the Company had specialized in advanced propulsion systems for missiles and space vehicles. It has engaged in the production of rocket components, flares and ordnance devices. At the time the Woodbine operation commenced the space program was concentrated on landing unmanned and manned space vehicles on the moon.

Camden County was selected as the site of the Company's plant for the manufacture of very large solid propellant motors. Woodbine was remote from any metropolitan area and was accessible to the water for shipment of engines and fuel to Cape Kennedy.

In 1965 the National Space Program decided against the use of solid propellants and the Government withdrew financial assistance to Thiokol. The Company converted its Georgia facility to the production of various materials, including specialty chemical and ordnance systems for the military.

On October 1, 1969, Thiokol entered into the contract with the United States through the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • October 17, 1994
    ... ... RHONE-POULENC, INC., Third-Party Defendant ... Civ. A. No. CV293-66 ... United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division ... October 17, 1994. 890 F. Supp. 1036 ... Massey v. United States, 733 F.2d 760 (11th Cir.1984); Aretz v. United States, 503 F.Supp. 260 (S.D.Ga.1977) (giving background of Thiokol's manufacture of ... ...
  • U.S. v. Aretz
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1981
    ...280 S.E.2d 345 ... 248 Ga. 19 ... UNITED STATES of America ... ARETZ et al ... No. 37389 ... Supreme Court of Georgia ... July 15, 1981 ...         [248 Ga. 26] Alice Daniel, ... ...
  • White v. WGM Safety Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • October 25, 1988
    ... ... Civ. A. Nos. 488-038, 488-037 ... United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division ... October 25, 1988.707 F. Supp ... See Aretz v. United States, 503 F.Supp. 260, 290 (S.D.Ga.1977). However, where the sole proximate cause of an ... ...
  • Massey v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • May 15, 1984
    ...733 F.2d 760 ... Flossie Marie MASSEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, ... UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 83-8505 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Enormous resources have been expended; the record is vast; the case, under the style of Aretz v. United States, has been reported at various stages no less than eight times since 1973. The ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT