Express your agreement or disagreement with this analysis and clearly state your reasons.

Scenario:

It is a quiet predawn morning in the Seattle, WA area and the lone FAA air traffic controller who is controlling the airspace in the sector south of the city has been on duty for seven hours. The weather is clear with a visibility of 15 miles. The only traffic is a Navy helicopter on the East side of the controller's airspace, transiting the area westbound en route to a nearby Navy facility, and a private airplane on the Southside of the controller's airspace flying northbound. Both aircraft are operating under visual flight rules, are in contact with the controller, and flying at an assigned altitude of 3,500 ft. The controller dozes off, then is awakened by the ringing telephone, learning that the two aircraft collided in flight in the controller's airspace. There are no survivors. Investigation reveals that the two collided while in level flight at the altitude assigned each by that controller.

Analyze the potential liability of the United States and the controller for the accident. (You may find it helpful to diagram the positions and approximate tracks of the two aircraft, first.)

Analysis:

The negligence of ATC in this scenario would make the Government liable under the Federal Tort Claims Acts. The controller is a government employee and is negligent by falling asleep while 2 aircraft at the same altitude were converging. The Federal Tort Claims Act would however only present the Government as liable for the crash of the civilian aircraft. Military aircraft conducting operations are not covered under this statute and the families of the sailors would only be entitled to SGLI life insurance benefits. The controller is responsible for providing an ordinary degree of care however in this situation the controller was unable to advise the aircraft of the convergence because they were asleep. Proximate cause is also required for liability however I think this could be supported due to the low volume of aircraft resulting in a low workload. There is a possibility that the controller could have been a contractor and would therefore make their company liable instead of the government in this scenario.