Suing the Federal Government
Federal Tort Claims Act
History



Traditional Sovereign Immunity
 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
Law." U.S. Const. art. I, § 9.
5th Amendment – “nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.”
All other compensation had to be by private bills
 What problems do private bills pose?
Court of Claims




1855
Contracts, tax refunds, takings - not torts
Administrative tribunal to review claims and make
recommendations to Congress
 Later Congress made the decisions binding
 Not an Art III court
 Like bankruptcy courts
Appeal to the Federal circuit and the United States
Supreme Court
Federal Tort Claims Act



Went into effect in 1945
 All torts were private bills before then
 Tied up Congress and encouraged corruption
Established a compensation system for negligence
claims
 Looks to the law of the state where the incident
occurred for the legal standard of care
We will discuss the procedure under the FTCA later.
Construction of Statutes in Derogation of
Immunity



The Constitution only provides for compensation
for takings of private property for public use.
All other compensation is governed by statute.
 Even Bivens actions are constitutionally
required under current case law (2013)
If the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the
statute, or fails to comply with the statutory
procedure, then immunity is not abrogated and
there is no jurisdiction for the claim.
Dalehite v. U.S., 346 U.S. 15 (1953)



Texas City Disaster
 http://www.local1259iaff.org/disaster.html
Why is the TVA producing ammonium nitrate
fertilizer?
 What are other uses of ammonium nitrate?
Where is it going in 1947?
The General Claim


The negligence charged was that the United
States, without definitive investigation of Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate (FGAN) properties,
shipped or permitted shipment to a congested
area without warning of the possibility of
explosion under certain conditions.
The District Court accepted this theory.
 A pattern in these cases – the local judge is
hard pressed to deny compensation
Specific Findings by the Trial Court



the Government had been careless in drafting and
adopting the fertilizer export plan as a whole,
specific negligence in various phases of the
manufacturing process, and
those which emphasized official dereliction of
duty in failing to police the shipboard loading.
The Statutory Defense

(a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an
employee of the Government, exercising due care,
in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether
or not such statute or regulation be valid, or
based upon the exercise or performance or the
failure to exercise or perform a discretionary
function or duty on the part of a federal agency or
an employee of the Government, whether or not
the discretion involved be abused.
What is the Intent of this Provision?




What is a discretionary function?
Why do we limit claims based on government
decisionmaking?
 What are the consequences for allowing litigants to
challenge government polices?
 How does this mirror juridical review of rules and
adjudications?
What is the remedy for bad decisions?
What about compensation?
The Supreme Court View of Discretion

So we know that the draftsmen did not intend it to relieve
the Government from liability for such common-law torts as
an automobile collision caused by the negligence of an
employee ... of the administering agency. We know it was
intended to cover more than the administration of a statute
or regulation because it appears disjunctively in the second
phrase of the section. The "discretion" protected by the
section is not that of the judge -- a power to decide within
the limits of positive rules of law subject to judicial review.
It is the discretion of the executive or the administrator to
act according to one's judgment of the best course, a
concept of substantial historical ancestry in American law
Allen v. United States, 816 F.2d 1417 (10th
Cir. 1987) - This Clears up the Cloud






How did the government put these people at risk?
Did the government deny that it caused any
injuries?
Was this an accident?
What did the government intend to do?
What is the discretionary authority issue and how
was it resolved?
What do you do if you do not like this?
FTCA Procedure
Causes of Action under the FTCA - Sec
2672



The head of each Federal agency ... may consider,
ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle any
claim for money damages against the United States for
injury or loss of property or personal injury or death
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
any employee of the agency
while acting within the scope of his office or employment,
under circumstances where the United States, if a private
person, would be liable to the claimant
in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
omission occurred
14
Limitations on Liability - Sec 2674


The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this
title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same
extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall
not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.
If, however, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of the
place where the act or omission complained of occurred provides,
or has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in
nature, the United States shall be liable for actual or compensatory
damages, measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such
death to the persons respectively, for whose benefit the action was
brought, in lieu thereof.
15
Exceptions to the FTCA - § 28 USC Sec
2680


http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/ftca_ex
ceptions.htm
(h) originally did not include the provision for law
enforcement officers.
16
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971)


Bivens recognized that there is a direct action
against federal employees for violations of
constitutional rights
 Bivens is a personal action, not an official
capacity action
Why might you use Bivens rather than state tort
remedy against the officer?
17
2680(h) - intentional torts by police
officers - revised after Bivens


Has become a substitute for a Bivens action for
covered officers.
 When would a Bivens action still be possible?
 When would an ordinary tort action be
possible?
A recent case allows a Bivens action against
federal medical personnel in a detention center.
18
Administrative Procedural Requirements Sec 2675



An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the
United States for money damages for injury or loss of
property or personal injury or death caused by the
negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of
the Government while acting within the scope of his
office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first
presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency
and his claim shall have been finally denied by the
agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.
Form 95 - FTCA claims form
Alternatives to Form 95
19
What if the Agency Does Not Act on the
Claim?

The failure of an agency to make final disposition
of a claim within six months after it is filed shall,
at the option of the claimant any time thereafter,
be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes
of this section.
20
Filing a Claim is Jurisdictional



This is an administrative compensation scheme, so it is subject to
exhaustion of remedies
 You must file a claim with the agency with 2 years of the
accidence
You can only go to court after the agency rules on the claim or
after six months
 "The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim
within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the
claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the
claim for purposes of this section."
If you do not comply with this requirement, your case will be
dismissed and if the 2 years has elapsed, you will be prescribed.
21
Berkovitz by Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S.
531 (1988)
Berkovitz by Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S.
531 (1988)




What was the product in Berkovitz?
What did the FDA regulations require?
What did the plaintiffs claim the FDA failed
to do?
What was the FDA’s defense?
Varig Airlines (in Berkovitz)




What was the injury in Varig Airlines?
What did the enabling act require the agency
to do?
What did the regs require?
How are the regs in Berkovitz different from
those in Varig Airlines?
Agency Liability



Why was the FDA liable in Berkovitz?
How could the FDA have worded the
regulations to avoid this sort of liability?
Why might that have raised a red flag during
notice and comment?