The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Liability, Nongovernmental Decisions

Air France v. Saks

No details yet.

Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, v. Lisi

No details yet.

American Foreign S. S. Co. v. Matise

No details yet.

Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc.

No details yet.

Atherton v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver For City Savings, F. S. B.

1) Can states apply standards of negligence that are stricter (more inclusive) than the federal standard of "gross negligence" for employees of federally-chartered banks?

2) Is there a federal common law governing negligence by employees of federally-chartered banks?

Yes and no. The unanimous Court concluded that "state law sets the standard of conduct as long as the state standard is stricter than that of the federal statute." The opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer held that the federal "gross negligence" statute was only intended to set a "floor" or minimum standard for state laws governing negligent conduct. The Court also ruled that "[t]here is no federal common law that would create a general standard of care applicable to this case."

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co.

No details yet.

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Jackson

No details yet.

Bangor Punta Operations v. Bangor & A. R. Co.

No details yet.

Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co.

Does the Expedited Funds Availability Act provide for federal-court jurisdiction only in suits between customers and banks?

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the act provides for federal-court jurisdiction not only in suits between customers and banks, but also in cases initiated by one bank against another bank. Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court that section 4010 of the act authorizes claims for relief that are enforceable in federal court. Moreover, Justice Ginsburg continued, "it is implausible that Congress directed the Board to handle such disputes administratively, for [section 4010] does not explicitly confer adjudicatory authority on the Board, nor set forth the relevant procedures for resolution of private disputes." Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia wrote concurring opinions.

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw

No details yet.

Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.

Does the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business signatory operators?

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the Act did not permit the Commissioner to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business signatory operators, since the companies were not related to such operators under the Act's statutory definitions. Justice Thomas reasoned that, because the Act is explicit as to who may be assigned liability for beneficiaries and neither the related persons provision nor any other provision states that successors in interest to these signatory operators may be assigned liability, the Act's plain language necessarily precluded the Commissioner from assigning the disputed miners to Jericol. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer.

Boca Grande Club, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company, Inc.

No details yet.

Braen v. Pfeifer Transportation Co.

No details yet.

Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

No details yet.

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis

No details yet.

Collins v. American Buslines

No details yet.

Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Kopke, Inc.

No details yet.

Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser

No details yet.

Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co.

No details yet.

Director, Workers' Comp. Progs. v. Rasmussen

No details yet.

Dixilyn Corp. v. Crescent Co.

No details yet.

Dooley v. Korean Airlines

May certain relatives of decedents, in a case of death on the high seas, recover damages for their decedents' pre-death pain and suffering through a survival action under general maritime law?

No. In an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that "[b]ecause Congress has chosen not to authorize a survival action for a decedent's pre-death pain and suffering, there can be no general maritime survival action for such damages." Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that the "comprehensive scope of DOHSA is confirmed by its survival provision, which limits the recovery in such cases to the pecuniary losses suffered by surviving relatives. The Act thus expresses Congress' 'considered judgment' on the availability and contours of a survival action in cases of death on the high seas. For this reason, it cannot be contended that DOHSA has no bearing on survival actions; rather, Congress has simply chosen to adopt a more limited survival provision."

East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.

When a product fails as a result of design and manufacturing flaws, damaging only itself and causing only economic harm, can the owner of the product bring suit against the manufacturer under the negligence or products-liability doctrines of tort law?

No. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that when a defective product injures only itself and causes only economic harm, tort law claims do not apply. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for the Court, stated "a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products-liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself." The suit, therefore, could only be brought under warranty claims, which could no longer be filed because of a time limit in the contract.

Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd

No details yet.

Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatl.

No details yet.

Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co.

No details yet.

Estate Of Cowart v. Nicklas Drilling Co.

No details yet.

Exxon Co. USA v. Sofec

Does the "superseding cause" doctrine apply to admiralty cases in which the court previously has adopted a comparative fault principle?

Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that a plaintiff in admiralty that is the superseding cause of its own injury, and thus the sole, proximate cause, cannot recover part of its damages from tort-feasors or contracting partners whose blameworthy actions were causes in fact of the injury.

Farrey v. Sanderfoot

No details yet.

Ferri v. Ackerman

No details yet.

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.

Does the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 pre-empt a tort action in which the plaintiff claims that the defendant auto manufacturer, who was in compliance with the safety standard promulgated under the Act, should nonetheless have equipped an automobile with airbags?

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that "[Geier's] 'no airbag' lawsuit conflicts with the objectives of FMVSS 208 and is therefore pre-empted by the Act." Justice Breyer wrote for the Court that a rule of state tort law imposing a duty to install airbags in cars such as Honda's would have presented an obstacle to the variety and mix of devices that the federal regulation sought and to the phase-in that the federal regulation deliberately imposed. It would also have made adoption of state mandatory seatbelt laws less likely." The dissent found fault in the majority's "unprecedented use of inferences from regulatory history and commentary as a basis for implied pre-emption."

Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.

No details yet.

Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp.

No details yet.

Guzman v. Pichirilo

No details yet.

Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai

Could a reasonable jury conclude that John Papai is a Jones Act seaman in accordance with his record of employment?

No. In a 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that John Papai's record would not permit a reasonable jury to conclude that he is a Jones Act seaman. Jones Act coverage is confined to seamen, those workers who face regular exposure to the perils of the sea. Justice Kennedy wrote, "[a]n important part of the test for determining who is a seaman is whether the injured worker has a substantial connection to a vessel or to a fleet of vessels, and the latter concept requires a requisite degree of common ownership or control."

Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray

No details yet.

Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp.

No details yet.

Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S. A.

No details yet.

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer

Does the False Claims Act, as amended in 1986, apply retroactively to qui tam suits regarding allegedly false claims submitted to the government submitted prior to is enactment?

No. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, because the 1986 amendment does not apply retroactively to qui tam suits regarding allegedly false claims submitted prior to its enactment, Schumer's action should have been dismissed, as required by the pre-1986 version of the FCA. The Court reasoned that, prior to 1986, disclosure to the Government of information about the allegedly false claim would have constituted a full defense, which the retroactive application of the 1986 amendment would deprive Hughes of that defense. "Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct completed before its enactment, we apply our presumption against retroactivity," concluded Justice Thomas.

Italia Soc. v. Ore. Stevedoring Co.

No details yet.

J. W. Bateson Co. v. Board Of Trustees

No details yet.

Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States

No details yet.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno

No details yet.

Kernan v. American Dredging Co.

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Deena Artware

No details yet.

Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp.

No details yet.

Marine Terminals v. Shipping Co.

No details yet.

McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander

No details yet.

McDermott, Inc. v. Amclyde

No details yet.

Missouri P. R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.

No details yet.

Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v. Director, Owcp

No details yet.

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Hiles

Is a railroad liable, under the federal Safety Appliance Act, for injuries incurred by a railroad employee while trying to straighten a misaligned drawbar?

No. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that Section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act does not make a railroad liable as a matter of law for injuries incurred by a railroad employee while trying to straighten a misaligned drawbar. "We are understandably hesitant to adopt a reading...that would suggest that almost every railroad car in service for nearly a century has been in violation of the SAA," wrote Justice Thomas.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby

1. Did federal law govern the interpretation of the ICC and Hamburg Sud bills of lading (contracts)? 2. Was Norfolk entitled to the protection of the liability limitations in both bills?

Yes and yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that federal law controlled the interpretation of both bills, because they were maritime contracts and the dispute was not inherently local. The Court also held that the 11th Circuit misinterpreted the bills as not protecting Norfolk.

O'keeffe v. Smith Associates

No details yet.

Olympic Airways v. Husain

If a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to normal airplane conditions, is this an "accident" under the Warsaw Convention's Article 17 (for which the airline is responsible)?

Yes. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Court's 6-2 opinion that the events on the airplane were an "accident" under the Warsaw Convention's Article 17. The Court cited its 1985 decision in Air France v. Saks, in which it decided any "injury is the product of a chain of causes" and that an accident occurs when "some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger." The Court rejected Olympic Airways' argument that only the cigarette smoke was relevant and that no "accident" took place because the flight attended simply did not act. The flight attendant's refusal three times to reseat Husain was a "link in the chain" of causes leading to his death and the attendant's rejection of an explicit request for assistance was an "event."

P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford

No details yet.

Reed v. The Yaka

No details yet.

Reves v. Ernst & Young

No details yet.

Roberts v. Galen of Virginia, Inc.

Must a plaintiff prove that a hospital acted with an improper motive in failing to stabilize a patient in order to prove a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act?

No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Section 1395dd(b) of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act contains no expressed or implied "improper motive" requirement. According o the Court's opinion, "there is no question that the text of Section 1395dd(b) does not require an "appropriate stabilization, nor can it reasonably be read to require an improper motive."

S. W. Sugar Co. v. River Terminals

No details yet.

Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co.

Can extra equipment, added to a ship after it was constructed, be considered "other property" for which the ship manufacturer is liable?

Yes. In a decision authored by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court ruled that equipment added by the initial user before he sold the ship to the subsequent user is "other property," and as Justice Breyer wrote, "[e]quipment added to a product after the manufacturer . . . has sold the product to an initial user is not part of the product that itself caused the physical harm."

Scindia Steam Navigation Co., v. De Los Santos

No details yet.

Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co.

No details yet.

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

Does the Alien Tort Statute permit private individuals to bring suit against foreign citizens for crimes committed in other countries in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States? May an individual bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a false arrest that was planned in the United States but carried out in a foreign country?

No and No. On the Alien Tort Statute claim, the Court unanimously ruled that the ATS did not create a separate ground of suit for violations of the law of nations. Instead, it was intended only to give courts jurisdiction over traditional law of nations cases - those involving ambassadors, for example, or piracy. Because Alvarez-Machain's claim did not fall into one of these traditional categories, it was not permitted by the ATS. On the FTCA claim, the Court ruled that the arrest had taken place outside the United States and therefore was exempted from the Act. It rejected Alvarez-Machain's argument that the exemption should not apply because the arrest had been planned in the United States.

Still v. Norfolk & Western R. Co.

No details yet.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp.

No details yet.

Transamerican Freight v. Brada Miller

No details yet.

Union Oil Co. v. The San Jacinto

No details yet.

United Pilots Assn. v. Halecki

No details yet.

United States v. Carter

No details yet.

United States v. Olson

Did the Federal Tort Claims Act waive the United States' sovereign immunity in cases where local law would make a state or municipal entity liable?

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that the United States waived 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. Nothing in the FTCA's "context, history, or objectives" supported the Ninth Circuit's holding that the act waived sovereign immunity where the United States, if a state or municipal entity, would be liable. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit treated the act's requirement that there be "like circumstances" to require the "same circumstances." Private analogies did, in fact, exist for the federal mine inspectors' conduct.

Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp.

No details yet.

Vaughan v. Atkinson

No details yet.

Waldron v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

No details yet.

Washington Metro. Transit Auth. v. Johnson

No details yet.

Waterman Co. v. Dugan & Mcnamara

No details yet.

Watkins v. Conway

No details yet.