Page 40

1

40 (1989); see also MacArthur Area Citizens Ass’n v.

2

Republic of Peru, 809 F.2d 918, 921 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

3

(“[A]lthough cast in general terms, the ‘tortious act’

4

exception was designed primarily to remove immunity for

5

cases arising from traffic accidents.

6

say that the exception applies only to traffic accidents;

7

rather, the point is that the legislative history counsels

8

that the exception should be narrowly construed so as not to

9

encompass the farthest reaches of common law.” (internal

10

citations omitted)); Asociacion de Reclamantes v. United

11

Mexican States, 735 F.2d 1517, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

12

(Scalia, J.) (“The primary purpose of the ‘tortious act or

13

omission’ exception of § 1605(a)(5) was to enable officials

14

and employees of foreign sovereigns to be held liable for

15

the traffic accidents which they cause in this country,

16

whether or not in the scope of their official business.”).

17

This is scarcely to

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ tortious

18

conduct took the form of providing material support to

19

terrorists.

20

Exception-—governs precisely those activities.

21

Terrorism Exception (with some ellipses) is set out in the

A different statutory exception—-the Terrorism

40

The

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

Advertisement