descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Timm Adams, Thomas Helicopters, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant, and E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc., Intervenors v. United States of America, Timm Adams v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Deangelo Brothers, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, United States of America, Timm Adams, E.I. Du Ponte De Nemours and Company, Inc., Intervenors, and Deangelo Brothers Inc., Intervenor-Appellant v. United States of America, Timm Adams, and Thomas Helicopters, Inc., an Idaho Corporation v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and United States of America

Citations: 420 F.3d 1049; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18037Docket: 04-35129

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 23, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a group of approximately 440 farmers and landowners filed suit against the United States and several corporate defendants, alleging that improper herbicide application by these defendants caused over $700 million in damages to their lands. The corporate defendants sought certification under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to be treated as government employees, which would have granted them immunity from the tort claims. However, their petitions were denied, with the government asserting that the FTCA’s certification process does not extend to corporations. The district court upheld this denial, leading to an appeal. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and concluded that the FTCA's term 'persons' does not include corporate entities, based on the statute's context and legislative intent, particularly in light of the Westfall Act. The court underscored the FTCA's purpose of waiving sovereign immunity only for natural persons acting within their governmental roles. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's decision, denying Thomas Helicopters and DeAngelo Brothers certification as government employees under the FTCA, thus precluding them from immunity. This decision clarifies the limitations of the FTCA with regard to corporate entities seeking governmental immunity.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealability of Certification Denials under the FTCA

Application: The court determined that the district court’s decision regarding certification under the FTCA was immediately appealable, granting the appellate court jurisdiction to review the matter.

Reasoning: The district court's decision on certification was deemed immediately appealable, and the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the legal question de novo.

Interpretation of 'Persons' under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Application: The court held that the term 'persons' in the FTCA does not include corporate entities, based on the statutory context and legislative intent.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the term 'persons' in the FTCA does not encompass corporations, citing that despite the Dictionary Act's broader definition, the context of the FTCA indicates otherwise.

Scope of Immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Application: The court found that the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity applies solely to natural persons acting as government employees, not corporations.

Reasoning: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the United States government’s sovereign immunity for tort claims against government employees acting within the scope of their employment, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Intent

Application: The court used context from the statute to determine that 'persons' under the FTCA refers only to natural persons, aligning with the legislative purpose of the Westfall Act.

Reasoning: Applying this reasoning to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the interpretation of 'persons' in 28 U.S.C. § 2671 is examined in context. If including artificial entities would undermine the FTCA’s purpose, then 'persons' should be interpreted as referring only to natural persons.