Phillips v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.
534 F.3d 986 | Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 2007
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Over 2,000 residents sued nuclear facility operators (including DuPont and GE) for injuries from radioactive emissions at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The court ruled that the Price-Anderson Act—the federal law governing nuclear accidents—creates strict liability for nuclear operations and blocks contractors from using the government contractor defense. This means contractors cannot escape liability by claiming they were just following government orders.
Key Takeaways
- •If you work on nuclear projects, you cannot rely on the government contractor defense to shield you from liability, even with federal authorization
- •Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous nuclear operations—you may be liable for harm regardless of negligence or fault
- •The Price-Anderson Act creates a comprehensive federal liability scheme that overrides traditional contractor defenses
The government contractor defense is inapplicable as a matter of federal law.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I use the government contractor defense if I'm working on a federally authorized nuclear project?
No. The Price-Anderson Act eliminates the government contractor defense for nuclear operations. You can be held strictly liable for harm from nuclear activities even if the federal government authorized the work. This applies regardless of how carefully you followed government instructions.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.