Facts
- The Coast Guard operated the Chandeleur Island lighthouse as a navigational aid.
- On October 1, 1951, a tug towing a loaded barge went aground on Chandeleur Island, and seawater damaged the cargo (claimed loss: $62,659.70).
- The claim alleged the grounding resulted solely from the lighthouse light being out due to negligent inspection and maintenance, including failure to maintain the battery/sun relay system, inadequate inspection, failure to discover the outage, and failure to repair or warn mariners.
- The claimants sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking money damages for property loss caused by alleged negligence of Coast Guard personnel.
Issues
- Whether the FTCA permits liability for negligence in operating and maintaining a lighthouse, even though lighthouse operation is a function historically performed by government.
- Whether the FTCA’s “private individual under like circumstances” language excludes liability for negligent conduct in activities in which private persons do not typically engage.
- Whether, after deciding to operate a lighthouse, the government owes a duty of due care to those who foreseeably rely on the light, including duties to maintain, detect outages, and repair or warn.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that the United States may be liable under the FTCA for negligent operation and maintenance of a lighthouse.
- The Court rejected a “governmental function” immunity limitation on FTCA liability.
- The Court concluded that once the government undertakes to operate a lighthouse and reliance is foreseeable, it must use due care to keep the light in working order and, if extinguished, to discover the outage and repair or provide warning.
- The Court treated the decision to establish a lighthouse as discretionary, but negligent maintenance as operational conduct subject to FTCA liability.
Legal Principles
- FTCA liability is not barred merely because the negligent conduct occurs in a service typically performed only by government; the “like circumstances” inquiry looks to an analogous private undertaking rather than identical private activity.
- The FTCA does not incorporate a general “governmental vs. nongovernmental” (or governmental vs. proprietary) function distinction as a categorical immunity rule.
- When the government voluntarily provides a service that induces foreseeable reliance, it has a duty to exercise due care in performing that service and may be liable for negligent performance causing harm.
- The discretionary-function concept may protect policy-level choices (e.g., whether to provide a lighthouse), but not negligent execution of routine operational tasks (e.g., inspection, maintenance, repair, and warning).
Conclusion
The Court held that the FTCA permits suits for operational negligence in maintaining a lighthouse and that the government, having undertaken to provide the navigational light, owed mariners a duty of due care to keep it functioning or to timely repair it or warn when it was not working.