Document: 487 U.S. 392 108 S.Ct. 2449 101 L.Ed.2d 352 Michael N. SHERIDAN, et ux., Petitionersv.UNITED STATES. No. 87-626. Argued April 26, 1988. Decided June 24, Syllabus An obviously intoxicated off-duty serviceman (Carr) fired several rifle shots into petitioners' automobile on a public street near the Bethesda Naval Hospital where Carr worked, causing physical injury to one of petitioners and damage car. Petitioners filed suit against Government under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in District Court, alleging that their injuries were caused by Government's negligence allowing leave hospital with loaded his possession. The facts, as alleged complaint supplemented discovery, that, after finishing work shift, consumed large amount alcoholic beverages; naval corpsmen found him drunken stupor building attempted take emergency room; fled when they saw possession; neither took further action subdue nor alerted appropriate authorities he was brandishing weapon; car later evening. Court dismissed ground claim barred FTCA's intentional tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), which provides Act's provisions subjecting liability for negligent or wrongful act omission employee while acting within scope employment shall not apply any "arising out of" an assault battery. court rejected argument 2680(h) applicable because relying, fact assaulted them, but rather other employees who failed prevent use rifle. Appeals affirmed. Held: Petitioners' is 2680(h). Although words "any claims arising battery are broad enough bar all based entirely battery, at least some situations directly will preclude negligently occur. Cf. United States v. Muniz, 374 150, 83 1850, 10 805. Even assuming sine qua non recovery, "arises tort, nevertheless exception does recovery this case. inapplicable torts fall outside general waiver immunity from liability. Since FTCA covers actions personal "while office employment," if nothing more involved here than Carr's conduct time shot petitioners, there would be no basis imposing Government. As case, however, allowed foreseeable occur may furnish independent status. Assuming version facts support Maryland law theory had been owned operated private person, mere happened federal provide protecting attach non-Government employed patient visitor hospital. behavior characterized also irrelevant. Pp. 398-403. 823 F.2d 820 (CA 41987) reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. ---. KENNEDY, judgment, O'CONNOR, dissenting REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, joined, J. Kator, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Christopher Wright, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 On February 6, 1982, named being driven Hospital. brought action—and affirmed—on (FTCA Act). question we granted certiorari decide whether meaning 2680(h).1 2 * When it motion dismiss, accepted discovery. That briefly stated. After shift medical aide hospital, quantity wine, rum, beverages. He then packed belongings, including ammunition, uniform bag left quarters. Some later, three lying face down concrete floor building. They room, broke away, grabbing revealing barrel At sight barrel, fled. Carr, heavily weapon. Later evening, property 3 began its legal analysis noting rule liable employees. argued assumed have made defendant Maryland, employee. Nevertheless, although stating "sympathetic" claim, App. Pet. Cert. 26a, concluded Fourth Circuit precedents required dismissal "happens government citizen," id., 23a. 4 (CA4 1987). Like Circuit's prior decisions Hughes States, 662 219 1981) (per curiam ), Thigpen 800 393 1986),2 foreclosed following advanced petitioners: 5 "The Sheridans argue status enlisted man and, therefore, employee, should [be] irrelevant issue government's vel failing injury. correctly assert shooting Sheridans' vehicle connected job responsibility duties undoubtedly lie inapplicable. See Rogers 397 12 (4th Cir.1968) (holding probationer marshal non-government torture probationer). contend anomalous deny simply handling citizen." F.2d, 822 (footnotes omitted). 6 In dissent, Chief Judge Winter cases involving hiring supervising situation has do assailant's wrote: 7 "As majority concedes . ., Thigpen, well relied upon purported premised solely and/or supervision. same true Shearer, [473 52, 105 3039, 87 38 (1985) ]. Such essentially grounded doctrine respondeat superior. these cases, arises, all, only relationship. If assailant government. It allegation can legitimately seen effort 'circumvent' bar; just possible fortuity happens receive paychecks—that designed preclude. U.S., 54-57, S.Ct., 3041-3043]; [v. Sullivan], 514 F.Supp. [667], 668, 669-70 [D.C.Va.1980]; Panella 216 622, 624 (2 Cir.1954). 8 "On hand, status, discern two distinct torts: (assault battery) precipitated it. Where reliance placed supervision superior principles, cause cannot really said 'arise of' battery; breach separate duty." Id., 824 (footnote 9 difference between dissent case reflected conflicting among Circuits well.3 We therefore resolve important conflict. 484 1024, 747, 98 760 (1988). II gives district courts jurisdiction over money damages "for loss property, death employment, circumstances claimant accordance place occurred." 1346(b). However, limitations, grant "shall [a]ny assault, battery" specified torts. 11 unquestionably import less clear, applied tortious acts, negligence. Nonetheless, both settled undisputed Thus, 805 (1963), held prisoner inmates could recover prison officials injury.4 Two quite different theories might explain why Muniz' did "arise injuries. First, since liability—namely, officials—the arise solely, even predominantly, assault. Rather, attention trier focused omission; commission considered part causal link leading Under view, individual involvement give rise liability, antecedent agents could, provided course similar State incident occurred. Note, Section Act: Liability Negligent Failure Prevent Assault Battery Employee, 69 Geo.L.J. 803, 822-825 (1981) (advocating view collecting cases). 13 response theory, argues language must read broadly accordingly barred, absence claim. need dispute, accepting contention conclude thus rely exclusively second makes clear 1346(b)'s waiver. 14 This explanation Muniz holding, narrower necessarily inconsistent first, adopts (later Justice) Harlan's reasoning 622 (CA2 1954). claimed another inmate recognizing "immunity literally assaults committed persons employees," id. 624, rest Act. construed otherwise authorized basic sovereign immunity. person FTCA, such assault; rather, applies 15 describing coverage Harlan emphasized statutory critical analysis. explained, "caused (Italics supplied)." 623. move emphasis next phrase employment"—to off-duty, inebriated serviceman, itself merely negligent. 16 By voluntarily adopting regulations prohibit possession firearms base require personnel report presence firearm,5 undertaking care visibly drunk armed, "perform [its] 'good Samaritan' task careful manner." Indian Towing Co. 350 61, 65, 76 122, 124, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955). person. now disputes assumption, our practice reexamine state kind or, without good reason, pass first instance.6 Cort Ash, 422 66, 73, n. 95 2080, 2085-2086, 45 26 (1975). seems perfectly unemployed civilian Indeed, Government, seem perverse exonerate happenstance payroll.7 17 kind,8 duty foreseeably dangerous wandering about unattended, odd assume Congress intended human instrument she malicious. fact, characteristics beside point. For analogous assumes control vicious animal, perhaps explosive device. Palsgraf Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). Because mind bearing damages, 18 judgment reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 19 so ordered. 20 concurring. 21 473 (1985), four Justices, myself, result But address assaulter factor applying exclusion. event, extent views I shared my present understanding, think Court's join, better 22 judgment. 23 before us how interpret Act, §§ 1346(b) 2671-2680, plaintiff's precedes provides, pertinent part, "[a]ny ." Both persuasive reasons conclusions. write separately set forth bases differences those opinions, conclusion decides reversed. 24 adaptation 1954), asks tortfeasor's occurred employment." Ante, 400. "[t]he negligent," concludes 401-403. misdirected. acted negligently, apart effect express authorization suits eviscerating prohibition Whether tortfeasor question. proper inquiry depend acts omissions predicated. 25 recognize much states allow "of [the tortfeasor's] status." 401. fails clarify "independent" significance somehow changes tortfeasor. asserts avoids pressed ante, 403, 8, unavoidable, analytic matter fully below, finding undermine substantially exception. correct focus language, submit, respect, reaches wrong result. dissent's fundamental premise substantial arises act. contradicts act: 27 "Where voluntary responsible beings intervene defendant's injury, problem foreseeability generally guided test. likelihood intervening hazards negligent—that is, sufficiently effect—then consequences .. So far concerned, make actor criminal." F. Harper & James, Law Torts 20.5, pp. 1143-1145 (1956) Restatement (Second) 447-449 (1965). approach implies converse: obliterates follows noted refers claims, suits. torts; wrongs. ("Any .") (emphasis added). Whatever uncertainty surrounds unlikely it, suggests, "all associated way battery." Post, 409. standard reasonably multiple causes, each accordingly. position violates principle stating: "If construe according ordinary meaning, say 'arises essential claim." 408. 29 am agreement Winter, wrote Appeals. To determine ascertain select supervise employee-tortfeasor relation. 820, 824, 828 selection result, bars Otherwise, litigants avoid substance likely many, plausibly ascribed supervisors. frustrate purposes 30 imply removed squarely implicated here, trial advised deal wonder. plausible missupervised officers authority had, assume, unauthorized enforce restricting base. Absent discovered. explicitly free pursue remand. 31 alternative performance Good Samaritan does, 401—403. relation Carr. individuals extended individuals, nonemployee alike. wandered onto base, little danger circumvented. governmental negligence, despite (barred) Block Neal, 460 289, 297-298, 103 1089, 1093-1094, 75 67 (1983) ("[T]he partial overlap [of misrepresentation regarding construction home] excepted well"). 32 sum, hold short step further, more, 2680(h)'s immune. 411. concur insofar finds reasons, agree 33 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE SCALIA dissenting. 34 seek section authorizes subject Despite unqualified today holds protect 35 Thus respect detention goods" customs enforcement officials, 2680(c), equated decided includes 'detention' goods." Kosak 465 848, 854, 104 1519, 1523-1524, 79 860 (1984). A parallel leads encompasses Justices described (1985). Army kidnaped murdered serviceman. plurality terms equally thought barred. 36 "Respondent reach framing her failure sweeping excludes provision cover like respondent's sound stem 'the statute' Spelar, 338 217, 219, 70 10, 11, 94 (1949)." 55, 3041-3042 original). 37 acknowledges phrased terms. 398. believes, recognized implicit limitations (1963). One consolidated decision assaulting beating him. intend prisoners bring FTCA. 158, 1855. infers fail nonemployees committing 398—399. inference unnecessary, expressly reserved exceptions 2680 prisoner's 163, 1858. extends erroneous interpretation Muniz. develops nonemployee, shows equal force employment. reject majority's premised, extension well. 39 There legislative history limitation today. enacted concerned particular factual situation. supra, 3041-3042. Mr. Holtzoff, Special Assistant Attorney General, told Senate excluded Against States: Hearings S. 2690 Subcommittee Committee Judiciary, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., (1940). House hearings, Holtzoff explained exemptions bill radical innovation, exempt certain difficult defend, unjust liable." H.R. 7236 Interpreting remark, suggests negligent, plainly culpable party. sometimes superseding causes relieve party 448 office. 40 stops most ambitious argument, commits 8. trust preserve core confine narrow scope. Title part: [28 2671-2680] title to— "(h) Any false imprisonment, arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, interference contract rights: Provided, That, regard investigative arising, date enactment proviso, prosecution. purpose subsection, 'investigative officer' means officer empowered execute searches, seize evidence, arrests violations law." "Subject 2671-2680], exclusive civil follows: "In affirmed court's fell tort] There, postal route, lured young girls truck sexual indecencies. previously pled guilty offense. parents children supervisor remain came contact children. court, arose supervisor, ". corpsman indecencies minor hospitalized behalf contending Navy offending corpsman. too, reasoned resulted lack government." 822. See, e.g., Doe 838 220 (CA7 1988); Morrill 821 1426 (CA9 1987) ); Kearney 815 535 1987); Bennett 803 1502 1986); Hoot 790 836 (CA10 Johnson 788 845 (CA2), cert. denied, 479 914, 107 315, 93 288 (1986). consideration. relevant was, August 1959, correctional institution Danbury, Connecticut. afternoon institution's dormitories struck inmate, pursued dormitory. guard, apparently choosing altercation instead interceding, locked chased dormitory him, chairs sticks until unconscious. sustained fractured skull ultimately lost vision right eye. guards letting prisoners, mentally abnormal, intermingle adequate supervision." 152, 1852. Allegedly, roommate aware improperly possessed firearm incident, yet comply requiring violation authorities. challenge assumption Its product thus, presumably, considering law. Moreover, challenging cites appropriate, instance, though identity unknown. example, Seventh (1988), maintained discovery reveal setting "Plaintiffs parents. During 1984, sexually molested unknown parties Scott Air Force Base Day Care Center. incomplete record appeal incidents day center premises during day, assaulted, returned. alleged, essence, breached duty, unidentified attacker molest youths. Child molestation course, form 221 supplied). certainly holding irrational permitting relief not. noted, strive attributing absurd designs Congress, particularly statute proffered, counterintuitive reading. outcome, consider hiring, supervision, training ever

Category: 7