Document: 352 U.S. 128 77 S.Ct. 186 1 L.Ed.2d 189 MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INSURANCE CO. and Kathleen F. Crowley, Administratrix of the Estate Jeremiah C. Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES America. No. 31. Argued Nov. 8, 1956. Decided Dec. 10, Mr. John R. Kewer, Boston, Mass., for petitioners. Paul A. Sweeney, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. This is a suit under Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674, U.S.C.A. to recover money damages from United States on account death one caused by negligent operation traveling cranes various government employees in federal arsenal located Massachusetts.1 The Act makes liable negligence its 'under circumstances where States, if private person, would be claimant accordance with law place act or omission occurred.' § 1346(b). That provision Massachusetts govern liability this tort. 2 Death relevant part, provides that whose agents servants cause another not his employment service, 'shall sum less than two thousand nor more twenty dollars, assessed reference degree culpability servants.' Mass.Ann.Laws, 1955, c. 229, 2C. assessment tort-feasor, rather amount pecuniary loss suffered next kin, those punitive nature. has been holding Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts. As stated Macchiaroli v. Howell, 294 Mass. 144, 147, 200 N.E. 905, 906, 'The chief characteristic statute penal.' And see Arnold Jacobs, 316 81, 84, 54 N.E.2d 922; Porter Sorell, 280 457, 460—461, 182 837, 85 A.L.R. 1159. 3 however, that: 4 shall * same manner extent as individual like circumstances, but interest prior judgment damages. 5 'If, any case wherein was caused, complained occurred provides, construed provide, only nature, actual compensatory damages, measured injuries resulting such persons respectively, benefit action brought, lieu thereof.' (Italics added.) 6 District accordingly held that, since 'actual compensatory' 'punitive' minimum maximum limits contained were applicable. It entered plaintiffs $60,000. Appeals reversed, though punitive, sets may recovered Act. 227 F.2d 385. here certiorari which we granted review important question construction 350 980, 76 469. 7 making 'for damages' nature,' goes back 1947 amendment. Alabama2 Massachusetts3 award wrongful deaths. Controversies soon arose suits Government maintaining local 'punitive damages,' it liable. Several bills introduced remedy situation.4 But solution agreed upon proposal tendered Comptroller General. In Alabama rule, spokesman General stated:5 8 'Since states are allowed, all required amend say allowed. believed suggestion whould eliminate discrepancy make settlement claims exactly accord general rules followed other 46 states. *' 9 seizes statement ones Committee Reports (see S.Rep.No. 763, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2; H.R.Rep.No. 748, 2) argue unless ceiling provided respected, discrimination against will shown Massachusetts, over dozen have ceilings also argued sole purpose amendment permit recovery could awarded, alter measure States. true Congress legislating ceilings. was, result amendment, became 'only nature.' 2674. adopted 'the injuries' death. 10 does provide nature' within meaning Act; even serve remedial end, recognized court State's See Sullivan Hustis, 237 441, 447, 130 247, 15 1360; Putnam Savage, 244 83, 85, 138 808. said latter never awarded alone generally imposed addition to, of, These related reasons advanced treating recoverable 11 We reject reasoning. standard at war punitive—i.e., 'with degree' culpability—not compensatory. 'compensatory,' i.e., 'measured resultng There nothing measures 'pecuniary injuries.' law, therefore, cannot taken define nature can 12 allowed death, limitation no relevance policy placing By definition, based defendant's culpability. Where state legislature imposes limit measure, decided highest punishment should wrongdoer. limitation, concepts punishment, control eliminated considerations punishment. 13 Nor concluded designed remove Massachusets between recoveries defendants. fact, perpetuates differences. defendant identical circumstances. fault high, injury slight, large represent culpability, slight damage actually done. On hand, great, similarly Government. differences inherent different applicable State chooses adopting Government, deliberately chose these substantial exist. therefore infer has, time, identical. 14 (a) adoption law—whether compensatory—to determine existence (b) substitution 'compensatory' latter. When rejected conclude went whole way made inoperative governing imposition injuries,' did preserve require considerable tailoring read way. refuse invitation achieve judicial interpretation. Reversed. 16 HARLAN, concurring. 17 Although I join Court's case, importance impels me add word what written. problem an easy one, do think inquiry stop literal reading terms statute, plain they appear be. Taking, should, 2674(2) wider context whole, am still convinced intended $20,000 apply 18 applying underlying reasoning must subverting overriding philosophy is, 'in extent' although departed when instances section every respect harmoniously philosophy, maxima statutes well individuals, punitive. 19 seems reason enactment differentiate defendants 'manner' 'extent' particular cases applied, find good giving partial effect. plaintiff manner' he defendant, except fortuitous circumstance, extent.' both highly culpable causes small injury, 'punished' high figure, whereas merely pay compensation. Or careless damage, punished low figure while heavy cases, effect circumstances; this, indeed, very why purposeful differentiation recoveries. Since basis individual, offend pay? Thus, pro tanto prevent assimilation me, there re-establish matter allowable recovery. 20 Furthermore, unlikely subject established irrelevant litigation possibly because danger excessive jury verdicts cases—recovery limited $20,000. being penal, embodies nonhomicidal figure. lawsuit—as 2674(2)—and compensation victim then vanish. might, course, impose well. so short repealed statute. clear embodied suit; factors led seem just artificial take use criminal imposing fine homicide. penal arrived concepts, artificially congressional mandate. 21 suggests applicable, put unique disadvantage some twelve limitations concededly provisions relate statutes, not, suggest lack symmetry having maxima, greater monetary Moreover, first aspect acieved expense offending scheme refer questions occurred,"* recognize actions. 22 think, full 23 FRANKFURTER, whom REED, CLARK, BRENNAN join, dissenting. 24 scope involving Congress, geographically constricted; actions arising out deaths Court, finding words clear, reversed Appeals, special responsibility interpreting matters circuit. 25 Underlying belief language creative reconstruction occasion, evidently frequently enough, Judge Learned Hand warned restricting 'plain' words. 'There surer misread document literally *.' Guiseppi Walling, 144 608, 624, 155 761 (concurring opinion). Of course begins ascertain meaning, end them. notion defines reminds T. H. Huxley's gay observation times 'a theory survives long after brains knocked out.' One suppose statutory had Boston Sand Gravel Co. 278 41, 48, 49 52, 53, 73 L.Ed. 170. 26 legislation finds them misleading isolation. An repeal. mendment part amends. 1946 harmonize central original allow torts committed tortfeasors rise claim occurred. filled gap, disclosed formulated 27 gap situation revealed forty-eight passed, Acts basis. Alabama, recovery, case—whether excess employer States—is filling concerned indicate, unreasonable suppose, meant unlimited face time restricted. Such takes putting better position imputes desire correct inequity creating With exception puts harsher basis, enact ceiling. rejecting present comport sense higher allows common-sense assumption supported fact during brief period through 1949, solely fixed $15,000. previous combined immediately subsequent To deny elevate above law. 29 First Circuit, Chief Magruder, order elaboration my agreeing interpretation paraphrase opinion, rest dissent regard substance opinion: 30 'In process foregoing (the Act), committee reports House Senate, pointing each determined occurred,' following comment: 31 "This bill simply amends grant people right already 46. 32 bill, authorize infliction amended, reported favorably unanimous vote. 33 "Its passage unjust intended, works complete denial homicide.' Judiciary, Sess.; Sen.Rep.No. Sess. 34 'Under now Title Code (28 U.S.C.A.) enacted new comprehensive code tort liability. calls application Also, generalization circumstances.' exceptional covered second paragraph 2674 2674) (that amendment) applies 48 states, their respective rests about contains bound concede, permitted employers. mandate 2674). 35 'As suggested above, break pattern wherever possible (1) might wrongdoer deemed guilty (2) all, failed prove kin Thus either situations 'to 2674.) 36 'But unnecessary construe narrow situation, effectuate far incongruity. If contention accepted, contain employer. (Footnote omitted.) 37 us literally, isolation, brought.' computed, found $60,000, necessarily, command 38 trouble argument organic whold. 1947, demonstrated objection portion purely legislative policy, $20,000, waiving governmental immunity What want give assess kin. Having done computed inconsistent cut down larger All damages—not cent damages—and thus achieved objective preventing words, clearly otherwise, look who entitled sue, benefit; whether contributory decedent, release him lifetime, bars death; none particulars Act.' 385, 388 391. Plaintiffs administratrix Crowley insurer Crowley's paid decedent's dependents, sue tort-feasor Workmen's Compensation 152, 15. Ala.Code, 1940, Tit. 7, 123; Southern Sherrill, 232 Ala. 184, 193, 167 So. 731; Louisville N.R.Co. Davis, 236 191, 198, 181 695; Jack Cole, Inc., Walker, 240 683, 768. For January 1, December 31, $2,000 $15,000 providing Mass.Acts 506. Beatty Fox, 328 216, 102 781. 1950, reverted system 427. raised 1951. 1951, 250. H.R. 3668, damages; 3690, form prohibition hearings, excerpts furnished Government's brief, printed.

Category: 7