Devlin Lumber and Supply Corporation, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 488 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1973)
Annotate this CaseJerome P. Friedlander, II, Arlington, Va. (Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Friedlander, Friedlander & Brooks, Arlington, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Karen K. Siegel, Atty. (Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn H. Baldwin and Morton Hollander, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, and Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case involves the liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674, for the loss suffered by a materialman because the government's contracting officer failed to require a payment bond from the contractor, as required by the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a.
The Federal Tort Claims Act makes the United States liable, "* * * relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances * * *," 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The Miller Act is a direction to federal contracting officers, and applicable only to them.
A violation of the Miller Act, unlike, for example, the negligent operation of a lighthouse, Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S. Ct. 122, 100 L. Ed. 48 (1955), can have no counterpart in private activity, and cannot give rise to liability under the common law. Therefore, a violation of the Miller Act does not create liability on the part of the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1963).
Affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
