Court Opinion

ID: 9491316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:10:29.721581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:39.538887
License: Public Domain

*902LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for two independent reasons.
1. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows claims:
[1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, ... [3] for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death [4] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government [5] while acting within the scope of his office or employment, [6] 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.
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (emphasis added). The Act does not make the government liable to the full extent of a private employer’s vicarious liability under state law. Rather, the United States is liable only if its employee was acting “within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2672; see Piper v. United States, 887 F.2d 861, 863 (8th Cir.1989). As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘Scope of employment’ sets the line.” Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 423, 115 S.Ct. 2227, 132 L.Ed.2d 375 (1995).11 The FTCA is a limited waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity. We have no jurisdiction to impose FTCA liability for the acts of government employees outside the scope Of their employment. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, 114 S.Ct. 996.
In our prior decision, we remanded “for reconsideration of [the district court’s] factual findings with application of South Dakota law relating to apparent authority.” Primeaux v. United States, 102 F.3d 1458, 1463 (8th Cir.1996). Our opinion noted that Leafgreen v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 393 N.W.2d 275 (S.D.1986), had discussed apparent authority as it relates to agent frauds, and we quoted Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(2)(d), which relates more generally to agent wrongdoing:
(2) A master is not subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope of their employment, unless:
(d) the servant purported to act or to speak on behalf of the principal and there was reliance upon apparent authority, or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation.
102 F.3d at 1462 (emphasis added). In other words, we invoked that portion of South Dakota law which authorizes the imposition of vicarious liability on private employers for acts of their agents that are within their apparent authority but outside the scope of their employment. Now, the case has returned, once again with a district court finding that Tribal Officer Scott was acting outside the scope of his employment. The court again reverses, declaring that the United *903States is liable because, from Primeaux’s perspective, Scott was acting within his apparent authority as defined in the Restatement. This ruling goes beyond the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
Scope of employment and apparent authority are two different theories of vicarious liability. See Commerford, v. Olson, 794 F.2d 1319, 1321 (8th Cir.1986). Neither Leafgreen nor McKinney v. Pioneer Life Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 192, 194 (S.D.1991), supports the court’s assertion that all acts done with apparent authority are within an employee’s scope of employment under South Dakota law. The foreseeability of the employee’s misconduct from the employer’s perspective is critical to the scope of employment issue under South Dakota law, whereas apparent authority focuses on the employee’s misconduct from the victim’s perspective. As § 219(2)(d) of the Restatement expressly recognizes, apparent authority is a doctrine under which an employer may become liable for torts committed by employees acting outside the scope of their employment.
State law may of course extend a private employer’s vicarious liability to include acts within an employee’s apparent authority but not within the scope of employment. But FTCA liability requires proof that Scott’s actions were within the scope of his employment as a tribal officer. Under South Dakota law, scope of employment is an issue of fact. See Deuchar v. Foland Ranch, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 177, 181-82 (S.D.1987). The district court found that Scott was not acting within the scope of his employment. That finding is not clearly erroneous. Scott was off duty, not in uniform, and outside his jurisdiction. Primeaux was out of her car, “walking toward the nearest town of Martin,” when Scott “stopped to ask her if she wanted a ride.” Primeaux, 102 F.3d at 1460. He offered her a ride, the kind of assistance any citizen might offer late on a cold November night. Primeaux accepted the offer because she wanted a ride. Scott’s subsequent sexual assault was by no stretch of the imagination a foreseeable event within the scope of his employment. See Bates v. United States, 701 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir.1983) (military policeman’s on-duty murder and rape of four civilians following purported stop not within scope of government employment); Leafgreen, 393 N.W.2d at 281 (judgment for employer affirmed because “there was not such a connection between [the agent’s] employment ... and the burglary which actually caused the harm ... as to make the harm foreseeable”).
2. The FTCA does not apply to “[a]ny claim arising out of assault, battery,” and other enumerated intentional torts. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Rape and other sexual assaults are within the classes of intentional torts excepted from the FTCA by § 2680(h). See Garcia v. United States, 776 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.1985); Doe v. United States, 838 F.2d 220, 226 (7th Cir.1988) (Manion, J., dissenting, and cases cited). Thus, the intentional tort committed by Tribal Officer Scott is not within the customary parameters of the FTCA.
The exception in § 2680(h) is subject to a proviso:
Provided, That, "with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising ... out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, “investigative or law enforcement officer” means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.
Though Tribal Officer Scott is no doubt a law enforcement officer for purposes of § 2680(h), the proviso only applies to intentional torts committed by such officers “while executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest.” Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 872 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849, 107 S.Ct. 175, 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986); accord Cole v. United States, 874 F.Supp. 1011, 1046 (D.Neb.1995); Employers Ins. v. United States, 815 F.Supp. 255, 258 (N.D.Ill.1993); Beran v. United States, 759 F.Supp. 886, 892 (D.D.C.1991); Rourke v. United States, 744 F.Supp. 100, 103 (E.D.Pa. 1988), aff'd, 909 F.2d 1477 (3d Cir.1990). *904Contra Harris v. United States, 677 F.Supp. 403, 406 (W.D.N.C.1988); Crow v. United States, 659 F.Supp. 556, 570 (D.Kan.1987). Scott was not engaged in those kinds of activities at the time in question, so the proviso to § 2680(h) is inapplicable.
Most cases construing § 2680(h) have involved the question whether the United States may be liable for negligent acts that somehow facilitated or contributed to intentionally tortious wrongdoing that otherwise falls within the exception. See, e.g., Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392, 108 S.Ct. 2449, 101 L.Ed.2d 352 (1988). In this ease, only intentional tort claims are asserted. Accordingly, those claims are barred by § 2680(h). Red Elk v. United States, 62 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir.1995), is not precedent for ignoring the limit on the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in § 2680(h). Our opinion in Bed Elk never mentions § 2680(h), no doubt because the tribal officers in Bed Elk raped the victim after arresting her for a curfew violation, which likely made the proviso to § 2680(h) applicable. Indeed, it is not clear from that opinion whether the government was held hable for its agents’ intentional torts or the government’s negligent failure to train and supervise those agents.
For both of the foregoing reasons, I would affirm.

. Because Primeaux did not assert claims against Scott personally, the Attorney General made no determination under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) regarding the scope of employment issue.