## Facts

- Two Arizona mine workers were seriously injured in a mine accident; a spouse also brought related claims.
- The plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligence by federal mine inspectors contributed to the accident.
- The district court dismissed the complaint in part, concluding the allegations did not show that Arizona law would make a private person liable in similar circumstances.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that for “unique governmental functions” the FTCA waiver applies if state law would impose liability on a state or municipal entity, and treating federal mine inspections as lacking a private-sector analogue.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the proper comparator for FTCA liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

## Issues

1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), does the FTCA waive sovereign immunity only when state law would impose tort liability on a “private person” under like circumstances?
2. May a court instead find an FTCA waiver by asking whether state law would impose liability on a state or municipal entity for a uniquely governmental function lacking an exact private analogue?
3. How should “like circumstances” in 28 U.S.C. § 2674 guide the search for an appropriate private-person analogy?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that the FTCA waives sovereign immunity only where local law would make a “private person” liable in tort under like circumstances, not where local law would make a state or municipal entity liable.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s rule that “unique governmental functions” permit reliance on state or municipal entity liability.
- The Court also rejected the view that the absence of an identical private analogue ends the inquiry; “like circumstances” requires looking for sufficiently similar private conduct.
- On remand, the lower courts were instructed to apply Arizona tort law to an appropriate private-person analogy for the inspectors’ alleged conduct.

## Legal Principles

- FTCA jurisdiction under § 1346(b)(1) turns on whether “the United States, if a private person,” would be liable under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
- FTCA liability under § 2674 is “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
- State or municipal entity liability cannot substitute for the statutory “private person” standard, even when the federal conduct involves a governmental function.
- “Like circumstances” does not require identical circumstances; courts must identify reasonably comparable private activities (e.g., inspections, safety evaluations, or certifications) and apply state tort duties to those analogues.
- When the alleged activity is governmental in form, the proper method is to compare it to analogous private conduct recognized by state tort law, not to governmental liability rules.

## Conclusion

The Court required FTCA courts to ground waiver and liability in state-law rules applicable to private persons under like circumstances, rejecting reliance on state or municipal entity liability for uniquely governmental functions and directing a search for appropriate private analogues under Arizona law.


United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005)