Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/254

 546US1

Unit: $$U6

[09-04-08 12:09:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005

43

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. OLSON et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04–759. Argued October 12, 2005—Decided November 8, 2005 Claiming that federal mine inspectors’ negligence helped cause a mine accident, two injured workers (and a spouse) sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act), which authorizes private tort actions against the Government “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred,” 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b)(1). The District Court dismissed in part on the ground that the allegations did not show that Arizona law would impose liability upon a private person in similar circumstances. The Ninth Circuit re­ versed, reasoning from two premises: (1) Where unique governmental functions are at issue, the Act waives sovereign immunity if a state or municipal entity would be held liable under the law where the activity occurred, and (2) federal mine inspections are such unique governmental functions since there is no private-sector analogue for mine inspections. Because Arizona law would make a state or municipal entity liable in the circumstances alleged, the Circuit concluded that the United States’ sovereign immunity was waived. Held: Under § 1346(b)(1), the United States waives sovereign immunity only where local law would make a “private person” liable in tort, not where local law would make “a state or municipal entity” liable. Pp. 45–48. (a) The Ninth Circuit’s ﬁrst premise is too broad, reading into the Act something that is not there. Section 1346(b)(1) says that it waives sovereign immunity “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person,” not “the United States, if a state or municipal entity,” would be liable. (Emphasis added.) This Court has consistently ad­ hered to this “private person” standard, even when uniquely govern­ mental functions are at issue. Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61, 64; Rayonier Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 315, 318. Even though both these cases involved Government efforts to escape liability by pointing to the absence of municipal entity liability, there is no reason for treating differently a plaintiff ’s effort to base liability solely upon the fact that a State would impose liability upon a state governmental entity. Nothing in the Act’s context, history, or objectives or in this Court’s opinions suggests otherwise. Pp. 45–46.