A. Pielke point out that the Springer case was based on improperly using available information, rather than inaccurately predicting the weather. To sue a government entity for a bad forecast, a person must be able to prove that their loss was a result of negligence. Otherwise, the case would be dismissed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which states the U.S. government can only be sued under circumstances where it "would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act [ ] occurred"("Lectric).
One reason public weather forecasters should not be liable is that weather predictions are made up of numerous and varied factors. Any one of these elements can quickly change a forecast for better or worse. There are many different factors occurring in our atmosphere at any given time, from moisture content and wind direction to pressure levels and movement of fronts. If any element of the atmosphere is neglected or misinterpreted, a forecast can easily go wrong. For example, a meteorologist may not accurately analyze information dealing with moisture content. This in turn could lead to a forecast that varies from one inch of snow to eight inches. Obviously, a mistake in snowfall amounts could spell disaster for transportation, education, and emergency services. In Springer v. U.S., forecasters were found guilty of placing a warm front on a map in the wrong location. This fatal mistake was caused by not following a certain policy which dictated how often information was to be updated. The result was a lack of warning of local severe wind conditions that led to the crash of an airplane.
Another reason meteorologists in the public sector should not be legally liable for their forecasts is that a weather forecast is made up of opinions and educated guesses. Although more accurate and scientific than calling a 1-900 psychic hotline, weather forecasts can and often do go wrong.