40 (1989); see also MacArthur Area Citizens Ass’n v.
Republic of Peru, 809 F.2d 918, 921 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
(“[A]lthough cast in general terms, the ‘tortious act’
exception was designed primarily to remove immunity for
cases arising from traffic accidents.
say that the exception applies only to traffic accidents;
rather, the point is that the legislative history counsels
that the exception should be narrowly construed so as not to
encompass the farthest reaches of common law.” (internal
citations omitted)); Asociacion de Reclamantes v. United
Mexican States, 735 F.2d 1517, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
(Scalia, J.) (“The primary purpose of the ‘tortious act or
omission’ exception of § 1605(a)(5) was to enable officials
and employees of foreign sovereigns to be held liable for
the traffic accidents which they cause in this country,
whether or not in the scope of their official business.”).
This is scarcely to
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ tortious
conduct took the form of providing material support to
Exception-—governs precisely those activities.
Terrorism Exception (with some ellipses) is set out in the
A different statutory exception—-the Terrorism
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks