Britt v. United States, Civ. A. No. 80-171-N.
Decision Date | 29 May 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-171-N. |
Citation | 515 F. Supp. 1159 |
Parties | Luther L. BRITT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Sterling G. Culpepper, Jr., and David R. Boyd, Smith, Bowman, Thagard, Crook & Culpepper, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs.
Barry E. Teague, U. S. Atty., and Kenneth E. Vines, Asst. U. S. Atty., M. D. Ala., Montgomery, Ala., for the U. S.
This controversy involves a flood hazard map of the City of Wetumpka, Elmore County, Alabama, prepared and disseminated by or under the auspices of the defendant United States. The plaintiffs—residential property owners in the City of Wetumpka— contend (1) that as a result of the defendant's negligence in the map's preparation and dissemination, the map inaccurately and erroneously failed to identify a certain area of the City of Wetumpka as being flood prone, (2) that, in reliance on the map, the plaintiffs built and occupied houses in this area, and (3) that their houses were subsequently severely damaged by flooding.
The case is presently before the Court on the United States' February 12, 1981, motion for summary judgment.
As one of the grounds for the motion, the government contends now, as it did in an earlier motion to dismiss, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because of the immunity provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 702c. For the following reasons the Court concludes that this contention has merit and that the case is therefore due to be dismissed.
As the Court stated in its order filed December 5, 1980, denying the government's motion to dismiss:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Christopherson v. Bushner
...locks, and other flood control devices." (Doc. 58, p. 8.) The court inBritt v. United States explicitly rejected this argument. 515 F.Supp. 1159 (M.D. Ala. 1981). Like in this case, the property owners in Britt alleged FEMA negligently prepared and circulated inaccurate floodplain mapping o......
-
Schell v. National Flood Insurers Ass'n
...Flood Insurance Act should not be considered a flood control project under § 702c. The federal defendants cite Britt v. United States, 515 F.Supp. 1159 (M.D.Ala.1981), in support of their argument that flood insurance is a flood control project. That case held that § 702c barred suit agains......
-
Kmart Corp. v. Kroger Co.
...Mfg. Co. v. United States, 210 F.2d 263 (8th Cir. 1954) (forecasting floods are part of flood control project); Britt v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 1159, 1162 (M.D. Ala. 1981) (preparation and dissemination of flood hazard map pursuant to the NFIA is an integral part of a congressionally m......
-
Powers v. US
...flood control. See National Mfg., 210 F.2d 263 (flood control project necessarily includes forecasting floods); Britt v. United States, 515 F.Supp. 1159, 1162 (M.D.Ala. 1981) (preparation and dissemination of flood hazard map pursuant to National Flood Insurance Act is an integral part of a......