Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

burner2214

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About burner2214

  • Rank
    New
  1. Oh interesting. I wasn't really looking at it from the contractor's perspective. I'll have to do some more research into the scope of Boyle and subsequent cases. I.e. does it just apply to injuries resulting in defects in design of manufactured products or are contractors immune from all state laws when fulfilling the terms of USG contracts unless immunity is specifically waived by the Federal government?
  2. Yes this is the crux of the matter. In the real life scenario it's not related to environmental contamination. For obvious reasons I don't want to provide actual scenario facts. There is a part of the contract that conflicts with 52.212-4(q), so the contractor basically had to chose between complying with the contract and violating state law. It unknowingly chose the former and this eventually came to light, but not from a party that is likely to bring a complaint. My conclusion is that I should assume sovereign immunity and research laws, regs, and policy for waivers related to the specific facts of the case.
  3. Good point, no I'm not sure. In my hypo I assumed, but didn't say that performance was on private property. My point with that statement was to obviate discussions about the contractor's liability.
  4. Is there a Federal statute or regulation that requires Federal contracts or actions to comply with state laws? For instance (this is a totally made up hypothetical) let's say a Federal contract includes the use of a chemical in manufacturing that is banned by the state where manufacturing is to take place. Let's say this banned chemical is used in performing work under the federal contract and its use leads to contamination of a local waterway. Clearly the company would be liable for violating state law, but would the USG have any liability for signing a contract in contravention with state law? I think the answer is "it's a bad idea to do this, but technically no the Federal government can't be held liable for violations of state law." Not looking for a legal opinion of course, just references to statutes or cases.
×
×
  • Create New...