Donnetta Berrien v. United States (2013)

See Andrews, 121 F.3d at 1438-40, 1442 (finding, in spite of the government’s non-delegable duty to monitor the activities of independent contractors hired to dispose of hazardous waste under Florida law, that the Navy was free to delegate its safety responsibilities in the absence of federal legislation dictating otherwise); but see Dickerson, Inc. v. United States, 875 F.2d 1577, 1582-84 (11th Cir.1989). 2 See also Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 659 (6th Cir.2013)…

Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 661 (6th Cir. 2013) (finding that “the decision to hire a contractor . . . fall[s] squarely within” the discretionary function exception); Gowdy v. United States, 412 F.2d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1969) (“In any event, the award of contracts by the Government involves a ‘discretionary function or duty,’ in the exercise of which it is exempt from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act.” (citations omitted)); Hudson v. United States, No. …

Multiple circuits have “held that the FTCA’s contractor exception, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Logue [v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528 (1973)], precludes FTCA claims for contractor negligence based on a state-law nondelegable duty of care.” Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 659 (6th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases); see Jasper v. Fed.

Cf. Wilburn v. United States, 745 F. App’x 578 , 582 (6th Cir. 2018) (holding that VA had discretion to decide closing speed of VA hospital elevator doors); Berrien, 711 F.3d at 661 (determining that Army’s “decision to spot check for safety compliance” at military base fell within discretionary function exception); Totten v. United States, 806 F.2d 698, 701 (6th Cir. 1986) (finding that Air Force’s decisions as to safety clothing and equipment “involved discretionary decisi…

Pa. Apr. 16, 2014) (declining to find that the government had a non- delegable statutory to provide medical care eligible veterans in part because doing so would “abrogate the independent contractor exemption”); Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Michigan’s nondelegable duty doctrine cannot render the United States liable for [independent contractor’s] negligence; imposing such liability would permit state law to abrogate the FTCA’s contractor exce…

See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814 (1975) (“Since the United States can be sued only to the extent that it has waived its immunity, due regard must be given to the exceptions, including the independent contractor exception, to such waiver.”) (citation omitted); Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 527 (1973); Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2013) (the contractor exception precludes FTCA liability for any negligence by contractors with the …

Thus, “[fJor [Plaintiff] to recover money damages, [his] claim must be based on a negligent act or omission by a government employee.” Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 657 (6th Cir. 2013).

See Orleans, 96 S. Ct. at 1976 (“Since the United States can be sued only to the extent that it has waived its immunity, due regard must be given to the exceptions, including the independent contractor exception, to such waiver.”) (citation omitted); Logue v. United States, 93 S. Ct. 2215, 2219 (1973); Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The contractor exception precludes FTCA liability for any negligence by any [Government] contractors[.]”); Blakel…

See, e.g., Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[S]tate-law concepts of nondelegable duty cannot be applied in the FTCA context to undermine the contractor exception.”); Alinsky v. United States, 415 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (“State common law principles cannot overcome [the FTCA].”); Roditis v. United States, 122 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Thus, any state law nondelegable duty cannot, on its own, override the United States’ sovereign immuni…

Berkman v. United States, 957 F.2d 108, 113 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating that plaintiff must demonstrate that a federal law permits the application of a non-delegable duty to the government); see also Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 659 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[S]tate-law concepts of non-delegable duty cannot be applied in the FTCA context to undermine the contractor exception.”).

Indeed, “[a]n FTCA claim that the government negligently failed to discover a latent defect after it properly delegated its inspection duties would essentially be a challenge to the government’s decision to delegate its inspection duties; this is precisely the type of challenge that is precluded by the discretionary function exception.” Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 661 (6th Cir. 2013).

See Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890, 895-96 (6th Cir.1994); cf. Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 661 (6th Cir.2013) (decision to spot check military contractor’s safety compliance fell squarely within discretionary function exception).

See Berrien v. United States, 711 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528 (1973)).