Source: http://wakeforestlawreview.com/tag/negligence/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:41:57+00:00

Document:
On February 6, 2017, the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in the civil case Beck v. McDonald. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, the plaintiffs brought suit under common-law negligence, the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (2012) (“Privacy Act”), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706 (2012) (“APA”) following data breaches at the William Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center (“Dorn VAMC”). The district court dismissed all claims against the Dorn VAMC, holding the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction since, due to the speculative nature of the claimed injuries, the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their negligence and Privacy Act claims. The plaintiffs also could not establish standing for injunctive relief under the APA due to their speculative claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the plaintiff’s claimed injuries were speculative, and therefore, the plaintiffs did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing.
On February 11, 2013, a laptop containing the personal information of around 7,400 patients was either misplaced or stolen from the Dorn VAMC. The Dorn VAMC failed to utilize the proper procedures for handling and storing unencrypted patient data. Dorn VAMC notified every patient tested with the laptop and offered each affected individual a free year of credit monitoring. The laptop was never found.
Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and the assumed class of 7,400 affected persons. The claims included common-law negligence, declaratory relief and monetary damages under the Privacy Act, and injunctive relief under the APA.
Regarding the Privacy Act claims, the plaintiffs alleged “embarrassment, inconvenience, unfairness, mental distress, and the threat of current and future substantial harm from identity theft and other misuse of their Personal Information.” Further, the plaintiffs claimed that they were required to purchase credit monitoring services, monitor financial statements, and move their bank accounts to different institutions.
Regarding the APA claims, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Dorn VAMC from transferring any new patient information until the facility could demonstrate adequate security measures. The plaintiffs also sought an order requiring the Dorn VAMC to identify and destroy any improperly-maintained records.
A second set of plaintiffs brought suit against the Dorn VAMC regarding the July 2014 loss of four boxes of pathology reports. The boxes contained the information of some 2,000 individuals. These plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and this second presumptive class. The claims involved almost identical factual and legal issues as those of the first set of plaintiffs, and the cases were consolidated.
The district court dismissed all claims against the Dorn VAMC for failure to allege injury-in-fact necessary to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Therefore, the district court held, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed.
The injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing was recently explored by the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, No. 11–1025, (U.S. Feb. 23, 2013). In Clapper, the Court held that a “threatened injury must be certainly impending” in order to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Further, a plaintiff could not “manufacture standing” by taking preventative measures against a non-imminent, uncertain harm.
The Fourth Circuit analyzed the plaintiffs’ claims under Clapper and found that neither the common-law negligence claims nor the Privacy Act claims met the standard of “certainly impending” injury.
Here, the plaintiffs did not plead that the loss of their personal information resulted in any actual harm due to identity theft. The plaintiffs lack evidence of any kind to support that their information was stolen for the purposes of exploitation through identity theft. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims are only speculative in nature – they do not “certainly impending” harms.
Clapper also held that a plaintiff could establish injury-in-fact by showing that a “substantial risk” of impending harm forced the plaintiff to incur costs to mitigate or avoid the harm.
Here, the plaintiffs plead that one-third of health-care data breaches result in identity theft, and the Dorn VAMC’s offer of free credit monitoring was a concession that the risk to plaintiffs was reasonably likely.
Finally, the Fourth Circuit noted that, since the risk of identity theft was merely speculative, the plaintiffs here could not manufacture standing by incurring costs associated with identity theft protection services. Thus, since the injuries claimed under common-law negligence and the Privacy Act were only speculative – and therefore not “certainly impending – the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing.
The APA confers standing to any “adversely affected” party suing thereunder, and thus, the plaintiffs do not require Article III standing to sue under the statute. However, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–02 (1983), which governs the standing requirements of a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief, requires a plaintiff to show that the threat of injury must be “real and immediate.” A “conjectural” or “hypothetical” threat will not merit injunctive relief. The test, therefore, echoes the language of Clapper.
Here, the plaintiffs plead that their information was taken in two separate data breaches, but they lacked a factual basis to assert any future breaches by Dorn VAMC past a mere possibility. Thus, the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the APA.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The speculative nature of the plaintiffs’ claims under common-law negligence and the Privacy Act meant the plaintiffs failed to establish the “injury-in-fact” requirement for Article III standing. Further, the speculative nature of the plaintiffs’ claims under the APA failed to meet the standing requirement for injunctive relief. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to establish standing for all claims, and dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper.
On November 1, 2016, in the civil case of Ripley v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, a published opinion, the Fourth Circuit established that the government contractor defense is available in failure to warn cases. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded to the Eastern District of Virginia to determine if the government contractor presented sufficient proof to warrant removal under U.S.C. § 1442.
For over four years in and around the 1970s, Mr. Bernard Ripley worked as a boilermaker at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. In 2014, when Mr. Ripley was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, he and his wife, Deborah Ripley, filed suit in Newport News Circuit Court, a Virginia state court. The Ripleys allege that Mr. Ripley was exposed to asbestos due to products that Foster Wheeler, LLC and Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (“Appellants”) manufactured for the Navy, and that Appellants are liable for failing to warn Mr. Ripley of the asbestos hazards.
Appellants filed a Notice of Removal and removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appellants asserted a government contractor defense, arguing that the suit stemmed from Appellant’s contract with the Navy, thus allowing removal pursuant to the federal officer removal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The government contractor defense allows a company that contracts with the military to avoid liability under state-law tort claims for design defects. When the Ripleys moved for remand, the district court granted the motion due to a decades-old practice in the district that denies the government contractor defense in failure to warn cases. Because the federal defense did not apply, according to the District Court, the federal courts had no subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants appealed the grant of the motion for remand.
Does the government contractor defense apply to failure to warn cases? If it does, can Appellants, under the federal officer removal statute, remove to the federal district court in order to establish the defense?
(3) the suit is “for a[n] act under color of office,” which requires a causal nexus “between the charged conduct and asserted official authority.” Jefferson Cty., Ala. v. Acker. (alteration and emphasis in original).
Appellants sought removal based on the government contractor defense as explained under Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.. In Boyle, the Supreme Court held that the government contractor defense applied to design defect cases. The reasons for applying the defense to defect cases were two-fold: (1) separation of powers suggested that the judiciary should be hesitant to intervene in matters of military procurement contracts; and (2) a higher risk of liability for contractors would increase costs to the government and decrease the supply of contractors.
The Fourth Circuit went against precedent that the District Court relied on in remanding the case back to the state court. Because of this shift in doctrine, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the District Court to determine if the Appellants have presented enough proof to warrant removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
On December 29, 2015, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part, a district court’s dismissal of an inmate’s Federal Tort Claims Act (“FCTA”) claim, after he was stabbed and severely beaten by fellow inmates in the published civil case Rich v. United States. The appellant, Joshua Rich, argued on appeal that the district court incorrectly dismissed his claim after determining that the FCTA’s discretionary function exception applied to the prison officials’ conduct. The Fourth Circuit, after reviewing Rich’s appeal, affirmed the district court’s determination that the prison officials’ decisions on prisoner placement were shielded by the discretionary function exception, but reversed the lower court’s decision regarding Rich’s opportunity to engage in discovery about the prison officials’ claims that they properly searched Rich’s attackers before placing them in proximity to Rich.
In 2008, Rich was sentenced by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah to fifty-seven years’ imprisonment, following his conviction for armed bank robbery, and for carrying a firearm in relation to the crime. He entered the U.S. Bureau of Prison (“BOP”)’s custody in September 2008.
Rich was severely beaten and stabbed multiple times. His injuries included laceration to his liver, among others, and he underwent several invasive surgeries as a result. A nine-inch homemade knife was recovered in the cage where the attack occurred.
Rich sued the federal government under the FCTA, claiming negligence on the part of the prison officials when they failed to protect him from harm. He argued that the prison’s correctional officers should have kept him separated from his attackers, and that those officers had failed to properly screen or search the other inmates before placing them in the same cage as Rich. The government moved to dismiss Rich’s claim, asserting that the discretionary function exception applied to both the prison officials’ decisions about separating Rich and his attackers and to the way in which the officers searched the attackers. The district court agreed with the government, and additionally found that Rich was not entitled to any discovery about whether the prison had any directives mandating a particular approach to performing pat downs and searches. As a result, the district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The United States is generally immune from suit under the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, however the FCTA provides an exception. Under the FCTA, sovereign immunity is waived when the federal government “would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred” for torts like negligence when they are committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The FCTA’s discretionary function exception limits this waiver, however, in situations where an employee must perform a discretionary function or duty.
To determine whether conduct fits within this exception, courts generally apply a two-pronged test. First, the court determines if the challenged conduct involves an element of judgment or choice. If a statute, regulation, or policy sets out a specific course of action to the degree that there is no exercise of discretion, then the exception does not apply. If the action does involve an element of judgment, the court must then tackle the second prong, which is to determine whether the judgment was based on considerations of public policy. If it was, then a government employee defendant can assert that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the exception.
If a defendant disputes the allegations in a complaint that could establish subject matter jurisdiction, a court may engage in an evidentiary hearing to determine if there are facts that support the jurisdictional allegations. Generally, under these circumstances, a plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint are not afforded a presumption of truthfulness. However, if the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with merit facts central to the complaint, a presumption of truthfulness will attach to the plaintiff’s claims. While the application of the discretionary function exception to decisions about the separation of prisoners is an issue of first impression for the Fourth Circuit, other circuits have weighed in on this issue previously.
The Fourth Circuit began its analysis by determining if the discretionary function exception applied to the prison officers’ decision to place Rich and his attackers in the same cage. The first step in this analysis was to apply prong one of the two-pronged test. Noting that the BOP is tasked with protecting and caring for all persons in its custody, the Fourth Circuit explained that the BOP retained discretion in implementing those tasks. Prison officials must consider and balance several factors when determining if an individual inmate may require separation. This, the Court concluded, satisfied the first prong of the test.
The Court, noting the issue of first impression, drew on other circuits’ experiences in determining whether the second prong was met. Other circuits, including the Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh have previously held that prisoner placement and potential threats to prisoners against one another was a standard part of the public policy considerations of maintaining order and security in federal prisons. Those circuits viewed factors such as available resources, proper classification of inmates, and appropriate security levels as inherent in various policy questions. Following in the other circuits’ footsteps, the Fourth Circuit agreed that prison officials should be afforded discretion in determining prisoner placement and separation. This, the Court held, meant that the discretionary function exception shielded prison officials from liability regarding whether they should have kept Rich separated from his attackers. The Fourth Circuit, in turn, affirmed the lower court’s refusal to grant discovery on this issue.
Turning to the question of whether Rich should be granted discovery as to his allegations that the prison did not properly search the attackers before putting them in his recreation cage, the Fourth Circuit diverged from the district court. On this claim, the Fourth Circuit found that the disputed jurisdictional facts were intertwined with the merits of Rich’s claim that the prison had not properly executed pat downs of the attackers. Citing the fact that the prison officials’ signed declarations that they had performed pat downs of the attackers stood in contrast to Rich’s allegations, the Fourth Circuit explained that the allegations applied to both the merits of Rich’s claim as well as the jurisdictional questions over his claim.
The Court argued that a period of discovery would give Rich the opportunity to challenge the prison officials’ declarations that they carried out the searches. The Court also explained that even if they accepted the declarations as fact, those did not resolve the question about whether the pat down searches were carried out correctly. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that because the pat downs were to be conducted as outlined in the Correctional Services Manual, this suggested the existence of specific directives which Rich should be permitted to find in discovery.
Because inmates who have a history of weapons possession are required to undergo visual searches, including a body cavity search, prior to entering a recreation area, discovery could reveal whether any of the attackers had such a history and if such a search was undertaken.
The Court finally noted that Rich could potentially establish jurisdiction under this claim if he could show that the discretionary conduct engaged in by the prison officers was marked by carelessness or laziness, because such conduct cannot be grounded in policy decisions.
While the Fourth Circuit affirmed that the discretionary function exception shielded the decision to place Rich and his attackers in the same recreation cage, the Court vacated and remanded to allow Rich to engage in discovery on the issue of whether and how prison officials performed pat downs and searches.
Today, in the published opinion of Joseph Antonio v. SSA Security Inc. the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of District Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the District Court of Maryland. The issue on appeal was whether the Maryland Security Guards Act (“MSGA”) imposes liability on a security guard employer beyond the common law liability imposed under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Fourth Circuit certified this question of state law to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which concluded that the MSGA does not expand the doctrine of respondeat superior. On this basis, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision granting summary judgment to the Defendant.
This case involves one of the largest residential arsons in Maryland history. On December 6, 2004, several men burned more than a dozen of homes in “Hunters Brooke,” a newly developed neighborhood in Charles County, Maryland. At the time of the fire, Hunters Brooke employed SSA Security, Inc. to provide security services for the complex. The evidence indicates that Aaron Lee Speed Sr. and William Fitzpatrick, who were working as security guards for SSA Security, Inc., carried out this arson. The motive for their crime was racial animosity against the African-Americans and other minorities living in the community. Ninety percent of the homes damaged were either owned by minorities or under contract to be purchased by minority buyers.
The Plaintiffs, thirty victims of the fire, filed this lawsuit against the arsonists in their individual capacities, as well as against SSA Security, Inc., ABM Industries Inc. (the parent company of SSA Security, Inc.) and Security Services of America, LLC (the predecessor of SSA Security, Inc.). The district court granted summary judgment to SSA Security, Inc. on the negligence-based claims of the Plaintiffs and on their claim under the MSGA. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision granting summary judgment on the negligence-based claims, but certified to the Court of Appeals of Maryland the question of whether Maryland Security Guards Act expands the scope of respondeat superior such that an employer may be held liable for the off-duty criminal acts of a security guard employee that have been planned (at least in part) while on duty.
The Maryland Security Guard Act states as follows: “A licensed security guard agency is responsible for the acts of each of its employees while the employee is conducting the business of the agency.” On March 2, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Maryland responded to the certified question posed by the Fourth Circuit. The Court of Appeals of Maryland analyzed the plain language of the MSGA, its context in the Maryland code, the legislative history behind this statute, and the policy considerations behind the law. On this basis, the Court of Maryland concluded that the law “has the same meaning as Maryland’s common law doctrine of respondeat superior.” Thus, the MSGA does not extend respondeat superior liability to an employer when an employee, working as a security guard, plans a crime during working hours.
The decision of the Fourth Circuit, once the certified question had been answered by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, was straightforward. The Fourth Circuit had already concluded that summary judgment was correctly granted to the Defendant on the negligence-based claims of the Plaintiffs. Given that the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the MSGA does not expand respondeat superior liability beyond the existing common law standard, summary judgment was correctly granted on this claim.
Comments Off on Is Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress a Freestanding Tort?
* William T. Dalessi Professor of Law and Philosophy at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California. I am grateful to Nataline Viray-Fung for valuable research assistance, to the participants in this Symposium, to the attendees at a faculty workshop at Bar Ilan University in Israel, and to Arial Porat for many helpful comments. I am also grateful to Seana Shiffrin for several illuminating discussions of harm. Errors remain mine.
* Carolina Distinguished Professor of Law, University of South Carolina. Thanks to Matthew Anderson, William Mills, Karen Miller, and Douglas Rushton for research and editorial assistance.

References: v. 
 § 552
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1442
 § 1442
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1442
 v. 
 v.