Branchoria Cash Landrum Cash Landrum

Follow the witnesses, medical claims, military mystery and unresolved evidence.

Within Legal Strategy

Why Army Ownership Would Not Automatically Mean Fault

Even confirmed military ownership would not show whether personnel created the hazard, merely responded to it or violated any specific duty.

18 sources 3 graphics
Preview for Why Army Ownership Would Not Automatically Mean Fault

On this page

  • Ownership, control and legal responsibility
  • Possible responder and escort explanations
  • The need for a specific negligent act

Introduction

Even if the Cash–Landrum plaintiffs had conclusively proved that the helicopters or the unidentified object belonged to the United States Army, that alone would not have established liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Ownership identifies a possible defendant; it does not prove that the defendant committed a legally negligent act. Under the FTCA, the government is liable only when a federal employee, acting within the scope of official duties, breaches a recognised duty of care and that breach causes the claimant’s injury. Establishing military ownership would therefore have answered only one part of the legal puzzle while leaving several equally important questions unresolved.[Congress.gov]congress.govApril 17, 2023…Published: April 17, 2023

Ownership vs Fault illustration 1
Explanatory illustration 1

A common misunderstanding is to assume that if military equipment is present at the scene of an accident, the government automatically becomes responsible for everything that follows. Tort law does not work that way.

In the Cash–Landrum litigation, proving Army ownership would merely have shown that federal property or personnel were involved. The plaintiffs would still have needed evidence demonstrating that Army personnel acted carelessly or wrongfully under the standards of Texas negligence law, which the FTCA incorporates for determining liability. The statute waives sovereign immunity only for negligent or wrongful acts committed by government employees within the scope of their employment; it does not create liability simply because government equipment was nearby.[Congress.gov]congress.govApril 17, 2023…Published: April 17, 2023

This distinction is fundamental because ownership answers the question “Whose aircraft was it?”, whereas negligence asks “What did the operator do that a reasonably careful operator should not have done?”

Without evidence answering the second question, the first has limited legal value.

Military presence could have had several innocent explanations

Even if Army helicopters had been positively identified, their presence would not necessarily have implied that military personnel created the dangerous situation.

Several explanations would have remained legally possible:

  • the helicopters may have been responding to an unexpected aerial incident rather than causing it;
  • they may have been attempting to monitor, intercept or escort an unidentified object they did not control;
  • they may have been conducting an unrelated exercise in the same airspace;
  • they may have arrived only after another event had already occurred.

Each possibility carries very different legal consequences.

For negligence purposes, courts distinguish between creating a hazard and merely responding to one. Emergency responders, military units and law enforcement agencies frequently become involved in dangerous situations that they did not themselves create. Simply showing that Army aircraft were present would therefore have left open multiple innocent explanations inconsistent with negligence.

Cash-Landrum UFO Incident - UFO, Helicopters, $20 Million Lawsuit!

Channel: What Truly Happened?

Open on YouTube

The plaintiffs still needed a specific negligent act

Negligence requires proof of identifiable misconduct rather than speculation.

The plaintiffs would have needed evidence of some concrete breach of duty, such as:

  • operating an aircraft in an unreasonably dangerous manner;
  • conducting an experimental activity without appropriate safety precautions;
  • exposing motorists to known hazards without warning;
  • violating established operating procedures;
  • making operational decisions that a reasonably competent military crew would not have made under similar circumstances.

Without identifying one of these—or another comparable wrongful act—the court would have had no factual basis for deciding that the government had behaved negligently.

This illustrates an important feature of FTCA litigation. Courts do not infer negligence solely because someone suffered injuries near federal personnel or equipment. The claimant must identify conduct that was actually careless, not merely unusual or mysterious.[Congress.gov]congress.govApril 17, 2023…Published: April 17, 2023

Ownership vs Fault illustration 2
Explanatory illustration 2

Causation remained a separate hurdle

Even if negligence had been established, the plaintiffs would still have needed to prove that the negligent conduct caused their injuries.

The Cash–Landrum case involved allegations of severe heat exposure followed by significant medical problems. If Army ownership had been proved, the plaintiffs would still have faced questions including:

  • Was the military actually operating the heat-producing object?
  • Was the object under military control or merely being followed?
  • Did military decisions expose the plaintiffs to the heat?
  • Would the injuries have occurred regardless of any military involvement?

These are questions of factual causation rather than ownership.

The distinction matters because tort law compensates injuries resulting from negligent conduct, not merely injuries that occur in the vicinity of government activity.

The Lawsuit That Never Landed: The Cash-Landrum Encounter

Channel: Down the Crooked Path

Open on YouTube

Comparable FTCA principles show why ownership is insufficient

Federal courts applying the FTCA routinely separate government involvement from government fault.

For example, in Laird v. Nelms, the Supreme Court held that damage caused by military sonic booms was not compensable under the FTCA absent proof of negligence. The Court rejected the idea that inherently dangerous military activity automatically creates government liability, confirming that the FTCA does not impose strict liability merely because military operations cause harm.[Justia Law]supreme.justia.comJustia LawLaird v. Nelms | 406 U.S. 797 (1972) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center…

Likewise, FTCA cases involving Army helicopters or other federal equipment generally turn on whether government personnel breached an identifiable duty of care rather than whether the equipment unquestionably belonged to the military. In Bursztajn v. United States, for example, ownership of the Army helicopter was never disputed; the litigation instead centred on whether the Army owed and breached a duty under the particular circumstances.[Justia]law.justia.comUnited States of America; United States Department of Army, Defendants-intervenor Defendant-appellee, 367 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2004):: Jus…

These cases illustrate the broader legal principle that proving federal ownership satisfies only the threshold question of identifying the defendant. Liability still depends upon proving negligent conduct.

The Cash-Landrum Incident - Real Alien Encounter or Government Project?

Channel: The Odd Side

Open on YouTube

Why this distinction mattered in the Cash–Landrum lawsuit

The plaintiffs’ greatest evidentiary challenge was establishing federal responsibility for the reported aircraft. However, even complete success on that issue would not have guaranteed recovery.

The lawsuit would still have required evidence showing:

Ownership vs Fault illustration 3
Explanatory illustration 3
  1. Army ownership or operational control.
  2. A specific negligent act by identifiable federal personnel.
  3. A causal connection between that negligent act and the plaintiffs’ injuries.
  4. Recoverable damages resulting from that negligence.

Failure at any one stage could defeat the claim.

For that reason, proving Army ownership would have represented only the beginning of the negligence analysis rather than its conclusion. The legal gap was not simply between “civilian” and “military” aircraft, but between demonstrating federal involvement and demonstrating that federal personnel actually violated a legal duty owed to the motorists on the road.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Why Army Ownership Would Not Automatically Mean Fault. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Browse more on Amazon:The Forms and Functions of Tort LawProsser, Wade and Schwartz's Torts: Cases and MaterialsUnderstanding Torts

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

UsingUSA

Selected fromArmy aviation poster oneBay.co.uk.

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: congress.gov
Link:https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45732

Source snippet

April 17, 2023...

Published: April 17, 2023

2. Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/797/

Source snippet

Justia LawLaird v. Nelms | 406 U.S. 797 (1972) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center...

3. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/367/485/495830/

Source snippet

United States of America; United States Department of Army, Defendants-intervenor Defendant-appellee, 367 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2004):: Jus...

4. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/19-2124/19-2124-2021-06-03.html

Source snippet

United States, No. 19-2124 (10th Cir. 2021):: JustiaJune 3, 2021 — OHLSEN V. UNITED STATES, NO. 19-2124 (10TH CIR. 2021) Full Name: Ohls...

Published: June 3, 2021

5. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-16243/19-16243-2020-10-28.html

Source snippet

United States, No. 19-16243 (9th Cir. 2020):: JustiaOctober 28, 2020 — PHONG LAM V. UNITED STATES, NO. 19-16243 (9TH CIR. 2020) Full Nam...

Published: October 28, 2020

6. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/34/968/551676/

Source snippet

Kolb & Florence A. Kolb, Individually, and Florence A.kolb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nathan H.kolb, Deceased, Plaintiffs...

7. Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/681/

Source snippet

Johnson | 481 U.S. 681 (1987) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court CenterMay 18, 1987 — UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 481 U.S. 681 (1987) * * Argued...

Published: May 18, 1987

8. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/782/853/299322/

Source snippet

Wendler, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 782 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1985):: JustiaDecember 18, 1985 —...

Published: December 18, 1985

9. Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/337/49/

Source snippet

United States | 337 U.S. 49 (1949) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court CenterMay 16, 1949 — BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49 (1949) * * Sylla...

Published: May 16, 1949

Additional References

10. Source: nolo.com
Title: How to Sue the Federal Government Under The FTCA
Link:https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html

Source snippet

July 16, 2026 — FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES This term includes: * employees and officers of a federal agency * members of the Armed Forc...

Published: July 16, 2026

11. Source: theexclusionzone.com
Title: cash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuit
Link:https://www.theexclusionzone.com/cash-landrum-1980-ufo-federal-lawsuit/

Source snippet

Cash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to CourtJuly 16, 2026 — THE LAWSUIT: FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE IN FEDERAL COURT Frustrated by offici...

Published: July 16, 2026

12. Source: law.resource.org
Title: 367.F3d.485.03 30478
Link:https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/367/367.F3d.485.03-30478.html

Source snippet

resource.org367 F.3d 485April 29, 2004 — Sherry BURSZTAJN; et al., Plaintiffs, Sherry Bursztajn, Plaintiff-Appellant, and State of Louisi...

Published: April 29, 2004

13. Source: youtube.com
Title: UFO Burned Them? The Cash-Landrum Case With [23 Helicopters]({{ ‘23-helicopters/’ | relative_url }})
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvdGRpAZbAA

Source snippet

[Cash Landrum UFO incident]({{ 'cash-landrum-ufo-incident/' | relative_url }}) lawsuit Cash-Landrum UFO Incident - UFO, Helicopters, $20 Million Lawsuit...

14. Source: youtube.com
Title: Cash-Landrum UFO Incident
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNfOAtCgKI4

Source snippet

The Cash-Landrum Incident - Real Alien Encounter or Government Project?...

15. Source: youtube.com
Title: The Cash-Landrum Incident
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzYIirmiLg

Source snippet

& UFO Injuries, Part 2...

16. Source: youtube.com
Title: The Lawsuit That Never Landed: The Cash-Landrum Encounter
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeHaNpNlHQQ

Source snippet

Cash-Landrum UFO Incident - UFO, Helicopters, $20 Million Lawsuit...

17. Source: youtube.com
Title: The Cash-Landrum Incident & UFO Injuries, Part 2
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESJIGpvcKnQ

Source snippet

UFO Burned Them? The Cash-Landrum Case With 23 Helicopters...

18. Source: ca5.uscourts.gov
Link:https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/03/03-30478-CV0.wpd.pdf

Source snippet

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals03-30478-CV0.wpd...