Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation
Decision Date | 13 October 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-492,86-492 |
Citation | 101 L.Ed.2d 442,487 U.S. 500,108 S.Ct. 2510 |
Parties | Delbert BOYLE, Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of David A. Boyle, Deceased, Petitioner, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
David A. Boyle, a United States Marine helicopter copilot, drowned when his helicopter crashed off the Virginia coast. Petitioner, the personal representative of the heirs and estate of Boyle, brought this diversity action in Federal District Court against the Sikorsky Division of respondent corporation (Sikorsky), alleging, inter alia, under Virginia tort law, that Sikorsky had defectively designed the helicopter's copilot emergency escape-hatch system. The jury returned a general verdict for petitioner, and the court denied Sikorsky's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions that judgment be entered for Sikorsky. It found that, as a matter of federal law, Sikorsky could not be held liable for the allegedly defective design because Sikorsky satisfied the requirements of the "military contractor defense."
Held:
1. There is no merit to petitioner's contention that, in the absence of federal legislation specifically immunizing Government contractors, federal law cannot shield contractors from liability for design defects in military equipment. In a few areas involving "uniquely federal interests," state law is pre-empted and replaced, where necessary, by federal law of a content prescribed (absent explicit statutory directive) by the courts. The procurement of equipment by the United States is an area of uniquely federal interest. A dispute such as the present one, even though between private parties, implicates the interests of the United States in this area. Once it is determined that an area of uniquely federal interest is implicated, state law will be displaced 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. Here, the state-imposed duty of care that is the asserted basis of the contractor's liability is precisely contrary to the duty imposed by the Government contract. But even in this situation, it would be unreasonable to say that there is always a "significant conflict" between state law and a federal policy or interest. In search of a limiting principle to identify when a significant conflict is present, the Court of Appeals relied on the rationale of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152. This produces results that are in some respects too broad and in some respects too narrow. However, the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act does demonstrate the potential for, and suggest the outlines of, "significant conflict" between federal interest and state law in this area. State law is displaced where judgment against the contractor would threaten a discretionary function of the Government. In sum, state law which imposes liability for design defects in military equipment is displaced where (a) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (b) the equipment conformed to those specifications; and (c) the supplier warned the United States about dangers in the use of the equipment known to the supplier but not to the United States. Pp. 504-513.
2. Also without merit is petitioner's contention that since the Government contractor defense formulated by the Court of Appeals differed from the instructions given by the District Court to the jury, the Seventh Amendment guarantee of jury trial requires a remand for trial on the new theory. If the evidence presented in the first trial would not suffice, as a matter of law, to support a jury verdict under the properly formulated defense, judgment could properly be entered for respondent at once, without a new trial. It is unclear from the Court of Appeals' opinion, however, whether it was in fact deciding that no reasonable jury could, under the properly formulated defense, have found the petitioner on the facts presented, or rather was assessing on its own whether the defense had been established. The latter would be error, since whether the facts established the conditions for the defense is a question for the jury. The case is remanded for clarification of this point. Pp. 513-514.
792 F.2d 413 (CA4 1986), vacated and remanded.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. ---.
Louis Stanton Franecke, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Philip A. Lacovara, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Donald B. Ayer, Sacramento, Cal., for U.S., as amicus curiae in support of the respondent by special leave of Court.
This case requires us to decide when a contractor providing military equipment to the Federal Government can be held liable under state tort law for injury caused by a design defect.
On April 27, 1983, David A. Boyle, a United States Marine helicopter copilot, was killed when the CH-53D helicopter in which he was flying crashed off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia, during a training exercise. Although Boyle survived the impact of the crash, he was unable to escape from the helicopter and drowned. Boyle's father, petitioner here, brought this diversity action in Federal District Court against the Sikorsky Division of United Technologies Corporation (Sikorsky), which built the helicopter for the United States.
At trial, petitioner presented two theories of liability under Virginia tort law that were submitted to the jury. First, petitioner alleged that Sikorsky had defectively repaired a device called the servo in the helicopter's automatic flight control system, which allegedly malfunctioned and caused the crash. Second, petitioner alleged that Sikorsky had defectively designed the copilot's emergency escape system: the escape hatch opened out instead of in (and was therefore ineffective in a submerged craft because of water pressure), and access to the escape hatch handle was obstructed by other equipment. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of petitioner and awarded him $725,000. The District Court denied Sikorsky's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions that judgment be entered for Sikorsky. 792 F.2d 413 (CA4 1986). It found, as a matter of Virginia law, that Boyle had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the repair work performed by Sikorsky, as opposed to work that had been done by the Navy, was responsible for the alleged malfunction of the flight control system. Id., at 415-416. It also found, as a matter of federal law, that Sikorsky could not be held liable for the allegedly defective design of the escape hatch because, on the evidence presented, it satisfied the requirements of the "military contractor defense," which the court had recognized the same day in Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d 403 (CA4 1986). 792 F.2d, at 414-415.
Petitioner sought review here, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision on three levels: First, petitioner contends that there is no justification in federal law for shielding Government contractors from liability for design defects in military equipment. Second, he argues in the alternative that even if such a defense should exist, the Court of Appeals' formulation of the conditions for its application is inappropriate. Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not remanding for a jury determination of whether the ele- ments of the defense were met in this case. We granted certiorari, 479 U.S. 1029, 107 S.Ct. 872, 93 L.Ed.2d 827 (1986).
Petitioner's broadest contention is that, in the absence of legislation specifically immunizing Government contractors from liability for design defects, there is no basis for judicial recognition of such a defense. We disagree. In most fields of activity, to be sure, this Court has refused to find federal pre-emption of state law in the absence of either a clear statutory prescription, see, e.g., Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525, 97 S.Ct. 1305, 1309, 51 L.Ed.2d 604 (1977); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947), or a direct conflict between federal and state law, see, e.g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217-1218, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). But we have held that a few areas, involving "uniquely federal interests," Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 640, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 2067, 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981), are so committed by the Constitution and laws of the United States to federal control that state law is pre-empted and replaced, where necessary, by federal law of a content prescribed (absent explicit statutory directive) by the courts—so-called "federal common law." See, e.g., United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 726-729, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1457-1459, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979); Banco Nacional v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 426-427, 84 S.Ct. 923, 939-940, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964); Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 597, 79 S.Ct. 1331, 1333, 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 (1959); Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 366-367, 63 S.Ct. 573, 574-575, 87 L.Ed. 838 (1943); D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 457-458, 62 S.Ct. 676, 679-680, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942).
The dispute in the present case borders upon two areas that we have found to involve such "uniquely federal interests." We have held that obligations...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richland-Lexington Airport v. Atlas Properties
...in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 60 S.Ct. 413, 84 L.Ed. 554 (1940) , and Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). The essence of WRS's contention is that it is relieved of liability to RLAD because WRS merely executed ......
-
In re National Sec. Agency Telecomm. Records
...prescribed (absent explicit statutory directive) by the courts — so-called `federal common law.'" Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 504, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). Absent congressional authorization, courts may only create new federal common law if the operation......
-
Pettiford v. City of Greensboro
...of its sovereign immunity, is not a party, yet the defense can be presented without it. See, e.g., Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 502, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988) (suit against helicopter manufacturer); Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 890 F.2d 698, 700 (4th Cir.......
-
Glover v. Hryniewich
...by such immunity outweighs its promotion of the "effective administration of ... government." Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 523-24, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). Here, the negligent operation of marine vessels does not appear to promote such purposes. Nevertheless, p......
-
Are Federal Contractors Immunized From Vaccination Litigation? Mitigating The Risk Of Civil Liabilities Arising Out Of The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
...of all the information it had or could obtain.”). The Government Contractor Defense As first set forth in Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the Government Contractor Defense is a common law defense that begins from the foundational point that state tort lawsuits are barred ......
-
SCOTUS Denies Cert In Case About Preemption When Military Contractors Perform Combat-Related Functions: United States Suggests That "Arising Out Of" Combatant Activities Is Highly Fact-Specific Analysis
...companies navigating these standards. Footnotes 1. Badilla v. Midwest Air Traffic Control Serv., Inc., 8 F.4th 105, 128 (2d Cir. 2021) 2. 487 U.S. 500 3. 28 U.S.C. ' 2680(j). 4. Midwest ATC, 8 F.4th at 127 (quoting Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 724 F.3d 458, 479 (3d Cir. 2013......
-
Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court Ruling Based On Government Contractor Defense
...those specifications, and (3) warnings of dangers known to the contractor but not the government. See Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 512 ANALYSIS OF GETZ DECISION The Ninth Circuit created new circuit precedent related to the second element of Boyle, and held that "the op......
-
The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Roller Coaster Continues: The 11th Circuit Ends The Nationwide Injunction Of The Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate
...has a distinct statutory foundation; indeed, it is to be accorded the force and effect of a statute."). 11. Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 US 500, 505 (1988) (citations 12. See, e.g., Conner v. Biden, No. 6:21-CV-074-H, 2021 WL 6773174 (Dec. 28, 2021). 13. Initial Implementation Guidance......
-
John P. Figura, You're in the Army Now: Borrowed Servants, Dual Servants, and Torts Committed by Contractors' Employees in the Theaters of U.s. Military Operations
...it indirectly affects foreign relations and faces a substantial conflict between state and federal law); Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 504 (1988) (holding that the contractual obligations of the federal government represented an area of uniquely federal interest). 36 Boyle, 48......
-
The Real Political Question Doctrine.
...(145.) 105 F.3d 1400 (11th Cir. 1997). (146.) Id. at 1401-02, 1404. (147.) Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). (148.) 487 U.S. 500, 512 (149.) See, e.g., Paul Lund, The Decline of Federal Common Law, 76 B.U. L. Rev. 895, 962 (1996) ("Boyle is one of the Court's most troubling ......
-
The Argument for a Federal Rule of Decision for a Bankruptcy Court's Recharacterisation of a Claim as Equity.
...at 161). (253) See supra Part VI.C. (254) Rodriguez v. FDIC, 140 S. Ct. 713, 718 (2020). (255) See, e.g., Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 507-12 (1988) (finding that the liability of independent contractors performing work for the federal government is an area of uniquely federa......
-
Chapter 5 Strategic Issues Concerning the Defense of Plaintiff’s Case
...Cir. 1990); see also Stajano v. United Techs. Corp., 5 A.D. 3d 260, 774 N.Y.S.2d 490 (1st Dep’t 2004). [963] Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 512 (1988); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig, 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2008); Lewis v. Babock Indus., 985 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1993); In r......