Opinion ID: 2633344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The independent duty doctrine

Text: Since Zerbe was decided, federal courts have recognized an independent duty exception to sovereign immunity. Under this exception, a plaintiff may bring a claim of negligence against the United States if the underlying duty does not derive from the torts listed in § 2680(h). [7] The Supreme Court recognized this exception in Sheridan v. United States , but it did not resolve the question whether the FTCA bars negligence claims based on the tortfeasor's status as a government employee. [8] Since Sheridan, the majority of federal jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have declined to permit negligent supervision claims against the government or have suggested that such claims would be barred if they were brought. [9] But the Ninth Circuit, and a district court in the First Circuit, have concluded that these claims are not barred. [10] The D.C. Circuit, like the United States Supreme Court, has so far refrained from deciding whether the government can be held liable for negligent hiring and supervision. [11] Finally, the Third Circuit has taken an intermediate position, venturing that even if the United States cannot be held liable for [the tortfeasor's] actions based on its status as his employer, . . . it may be without sovereign immunity for negligence by other [government] employees, who were within the scope of their own employment, in not stopping the injurious behavior. [12] In sum, although FTCA case law has evolved significantly since Zerbe was decided, and Zerbe continues to represent the minority view, the conclusion that the FTCA does not bar negligence claims based on the tortfeasor's employment relationship with the government has not been foreclosed. Because some federal courts still maintain that such claims are not barred, Zerbe's position remains plausible in the context of FTCA case law.