Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶29

Boyle's reasoning contradicts the Fourth Circuit's analysis. Boyle addressed “a special circumstance” in which the contractor has a defense because “the government has directed a contractor to do the very thing that is the subject of the claim.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 74, n. 6 (2001). Hencely sued Fluor for conduct that, we assume (as the Fourth Circuit did), was not authorized by, but was even contrary to, federal instructions. See 120 F. 4th, at 430. Fluor does not dispute that military officials found it to have failed in its contractual obligations. It also does not dispute that the Army found this failure to be a cause of Hencely's injuries. Even granting that there is a “uniquely federal interest” in the regulation of military bases overseas, there would be no “significant confict” between that interest and state-law negligence liability premised on…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.