Federal Tort Claims Act

• Pages: 30-31

30 Volume 23, April–June 2017 international law update

© 2017 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

an open question under California law, however,

whether the f‌iref‌ighter’s rule applied to military

service members. e district court declined to

extend the f‌iref‌ighter’s rule beyond domestic f‌irst

responders. Cooper II, 166 F.Supp.3d at 1127.

e Court of Appeals provided no opinion as to

whether the f‌iref‌ighter’s rule applied to military

service members and, if so, whether it barred

Plaintif‌fs’ claims. e Court of Appeals af‌f‌irmed

the district court’s denial of TEPCO’s motion to

dismiss. *1218

citation: Cooper v. TOKYO ELEC. POWER

COMPANY, INC., 860 F. 3d 1193 (Court of

Appeals, 9th Circuit 2017).

FEDERAL TORT

CLAIMS ACT

In action under Federal Tort Claims Act

where US State Department employee

suffered injuries in Haiti, District Of

Columbia Circuit Affirms Dismissal of

lawsuit

Kathey-Lee Galvin, a State Department of‌f‌icer,

suf‌fered severe injuries in her diplomatic housing

when stationed overseas in Haiti. According to

the complaint, Galvin worked as a political of‌f‌icer

with the State Department and was assigned to the

United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.

e State Department provided Galvin and her

husband Blaise Pellegrin with diplomatic housing

in the city. Galvin and Pellegrin brought suit

against the United States, alleging one count of

negligence for the faulty construction and design

of their diplomatic housing. ey sued under the

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the

United States’ sovereign immunity for torts when

the “United States, if a private person, would be

liable to the claimant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

e district court held that it lacked jurisdiction

over Galvin and Pellegrin’s action pursuant to the

foreign country exception. Defendants now appeal

the district court’s dismissal of their action.

ey contend, in particular, that their

diplomatic housing which the State Department

leased on their behalf was controlled by the

United States Embassy in Haiti. Court expressed

that even assuming (without deciding) that all

overseas diplomatic housing should receive the

same treatment under the FTCA as a United

States embassy, Galvin and Pellegrin’s argument

cannot be squared with precedent in the decision of

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 69 (D.C.

Cir. 2003). e claims in Macharia arose from

the 1998 bombing of the United States Embassy

in Nairobi, Kenya. One of the questions in that

case concerned whether the United States could