Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Environmental Law
NEPA Compliance Testimony May Be Used to Determine
the Applicable Standard of Care in State Law Tort Claim
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Adams v. United States, No. 03-0049-E-BLW, 2009 WL 1034762 (D. Idaho Apr. 16, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) motion to exclude expert testimony regarding National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in a state law tort case because although the BLM could not be held liable under NEPA directly, the issue of NEPA compliance could be relevant in determining whether the BLM breached its duty of care under state law.
Background
Plaintiffs brought an action against the BLM, alleging that the BLM violated NEPA by using the herbicide "Oust" in one of its projects. Id. at *1. The BLM moved to exclude the expert testimony of Nicholas C. Yost, an attorney who served as general counsel of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Id. Yost was being offered as the leading expert on NEPA regulations, and was to testify regarding liability for NEPA violations. Id.
Arguments
The BLM argued that Yost's testimony was irrelevant because its liability in a tort action depended entirely on state law pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and thus it could not be held liable for violating NEPA. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court explained that under the FTCA, "any duty that the BLM owed to plaintiffs must be found in Idaho tort law," but once such duty is established, federal statutes or regulations can be used to provide evidence of what constitutes reasonable conduct under the circumstances; therefore, federal laws could be relevant in determining the standard for ordinary care. Id. The court reasoned that evidence concerning the BLM's compliance with NEPA before deciding to use Oust could be relevant in determining whether it exercised ordinary care, and thus denied the BLM's motion to exclude expert testimony on that subject. Id. at *2.
The case was decided on April 16, 2009.