Devlin Lumber and Supply Corporation v. United States, 73-1530.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1530.,73-1530. |
| Citation | 488 F.2d 88 |
| Parties | DEVLIN LUMBER AND SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Jerome P. Friedlander, II, Arlington, Va. (Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander, Friedlander & Brooks, Arlington, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Karen K. Siegel, Atty. (Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn H. Baldwin and Morton Hollander, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, and Brian P. Gettings, U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
This case involves the liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674, for the loss suffered by a materialman because the government's contracting officer failed to require a payment bond from the contractor, as required by the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a.
The Federal Tort Claims Act makes the United States liable, "* * * relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances * * *," 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The Miller Act is a direction to federal contracting officers, and applicable only to them.
A violation of the Miller Act, unlike, for example, the negligent operation of a lighthouse, Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955), can have no counterpart in private activity, and cannot give rise to liability under the common law. Therefore, a violation of the Miller Act does not create liability on the part of the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1963).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams
...of a federal statute or regulation, absent a violation of some other common law duty. Id. at 137, citing Devlin Lumber and Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973). Moreover, the regulations governing the FSLIC provide When, in his the Supervising Agent opinion, such ac......
-
US v. TAC Const. Co., Inc.
...of the federal government or its officers to require a prime contractor to post a Miller Act bond. Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88 (4th Cir.1973) (per curiam); United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622 (5th Cir.1963); Kennedy Electric Co. v. United States Postal Servic......
-
Zeller v. United States
...v. United States, supra, at 1149. See also Baker v. F & F Investment Co., 489 F.2d 829, 835 (C.A.7 1973); Devlin Lumber and Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88 (C.A.4 1973); United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622, 624-25 (C.A.5 Applied here, even though the obligations and duties creat......
-
Liuzzo v. United States, Civ. A. No. 79-72564.
...v. Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 182 (D.Minn.) aff'd 610 F.2d 588 (8th Cir. 1979); Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1973); Zeller v. United States, 467 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.N.Y.1979); Geo. Byers Sons, Inc. v. East Europe Import Export, Inc.......