Torts - Cases, Principles, and Institutions Fifth Edition, 2016a

Witt & Tani, TCPI 8. Duty Problem
such activities having been done in compliance with statutes like those described in subsection
(a)(4). . . .
[T]he legislative history of the statute supports the Firearms Suppliers’ proffered
interpretation of the term “applicable.” United States Senator Larry E. Craig, a sponsor of the
PLCAA, named the case at bar as an “example . . . of exactly the type of . . . lawsuit . . . this bill
will eliminate.” . . . United States Representative Clifford B. Stearns, the sponsor of H.R. 800, the
House version of the PLCAA, inserted similar comments into the PLCAA’s legislative history so
that the “Congressional Record [would] clearly reflect some specific examples of the type of . . .
lawsuit” the PLCAA would preclude. . . .
The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment dismissing
the case as barred by the PLCAA.
KATZMANN, J., dissenting.
Unlike the majority, I believe this case may be simply resolved by looking only at the
ordinary meaning of the words in the statute. . . .
As the district court correctly noted, 401 F.Supp.2d at 261, the ordinary meaning of the
word “applicable” is clear; any attempt to read that word as meaning anything more than “capable
of being applied” is a strained effort to read an ambiguity that does not exist into the statute. . . .
7. Wartime and National Security Immunities
Tort damages in wartime have received considerable attention in the past decade. There is
no FTCA liability for claims arising out of combat activities of the U.S. armed forces, since the
Act declined to waive sovereign immunity for such claims. 28 U.S.C. s. 2680(j). But in armed
conflict featuring frequent collisions between U.S. armed forces and civilian populations, the
absence of a tort remedy has seemed to be a strategic problem in situations where American
Humvees, tanks, and trucks inevitably run into civilians’ homes, animals, and family members.
See John Fabian Witt, Form and Substance in the Law of Counterinsurgency Damages, 41 LOY.
L. REV. 1455 (2008).
The Foreign Claims Act (FCA), first enacted during World War I, aims to offer a remedy
where tort doesn’t reach. The FCA authorizes the U.S. Armed Forces to pay monetary
compensation to the inhabitants of foreign countries for torts committed against them by the in
non-combat operations. A claimant seeking relief under the FCA must file a grievance with a
Foreign Claims Commission (“FCC”), a quasi-judicial body established by the Army to handle
foreign tort claims. The FCCs, which consist of between one and three commissioned officers,
are authorized to approve payouts of varying size, depending primarily on the number of officers
sitting on the panel. A one-officer commission may approve damages of up to $2,500, unless that
one officer is a Judge Advocate, in which case the figure rises to $15,000. A three-officer
commission, however, may authorize payment of up to $50,000 for a single claim, or $100,000
for multiple claims arising from the same incident. The Secretary of the Army must authorize all
payments in excess of $100,000. Alleged torts stemming from combat activities are barred from
consideration, and any national of a country at war with the United States must be deemed
477