Laird v. Nelms: A Call for Review and Revision of the Federal Tort Claims Act

Authors

Cornelius J. Peck, University of Washington School of Law

Abstract

Despite the Federal Tort Claims Act's explicit purpose to make state law determinative of recovery for governmental wrongs, the United States Supreme Court in Laird v. Nelms held that liability under the Act may not be predicated on a state statute imposing absolute or strict liability. Professor Peck challenges the Court's rationale in reaching this decision, concluding that Laird v. Nelms makes legislative revision of the Federal Tort Claims Act imperative. To guarantee that the Act will not insulate the government from strict liability for its ultrahazardous activities, Professor Peck proposes several basic changes to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the most vital of which are amendments to the Act's jurisdictional grant and discretionary function provisions.

First Page

391

Recommended Citation

Cornelius J. Peck, Laird v. Nelms: A Call for Review and Revision of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 48 Wash. L. Rev. 391 (1973).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol48/iss2/3