546US1
44
Unit: $$U6
[09-04-08 12:09:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN
UNITED STATES v. OLSON Opinion of the Court
(b) The Ninth Circuit’s second premise reads the Act too narrowly. Section 2674 makes the United States liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” (Emphasis added.) The words “like circumstances” do not restrict a court’s inquiry to the same circumstances, but require it to look further afield. See, e. g., Indian Towing, supra, at 64. The Government in ef fect concedes, and other Courts of Appeals’ decisions applying Indian Towing’s logic suggest, that private person analogies exist for the fed eral mine inspectors’ conduct at issue. The Ninth Circuit should have looked for such an analogy. Pp. 46–47. (c) The lower courts should decide in the first instance precisely which Arizona tort law doctrine applies here. P. 48. 362 F. 3d 1236, vacated and remanded. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Deanne E. Maynard argued the cause for the United States. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solic itor General Kneedler, Mark B. Stern, and Dana J. Martin. Thomas G. Cotter argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA or Act) authorizes private tort actions against the United States “under circum stances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b)(1). We here interpret these words to mean what they say, namely, that the United States waives sovereign immunity “under circumstances” where local law would make a “private person” liable in tort. (Emphasis added.) And we reverse a line of Ninth Circuit precedent permitting courts in certain circumstances to base a waiver simply upon a finding that local law would make a “state or municipal entit[y]” liable. See, e. g., Hines v. United States, 60 F. 3d 1442, 1448 (1995); Cimo v. INS, 16 F. 3d 1039, 1041 (1994); Cameron v. Janssen Bros. Nurseries, Ltd., 7 F. 3d 821, 825
