Court Opinion

ID: 9469258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:36:03.442486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:18.229728
License: Public Domain

WEIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The interpretation of § 2680(c) adopted by the majority in this case produces anomalous results. If a traveller handed an ex-' pensive oriental vase to a customs officer for inspection at a port of entry, and the officer carelessly dropped the vase, damages would be payable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under the court’s holding today, however, that same individual would be without an FTCA remedy if the officer dropped the vase during a period of detention. I do not believe that the statutory language shows that Congress intended to bring about such inconsistent results by giving the Customs Service a license to harm property while it is being detained. Plaintiff had as much right to expect that the government would return his possessions intact, or else respond in damages, as any other person who is forced to temporarily relinquish his property to the government.
The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq., was Congress’ response to complaints that sovereign immunity worked an injustice on citizens who had suffered personal injury or property damage through the negligence of government employees. In general, the statute waives sovereign immunity so that the government is liable in circumstances where private persons would be responsible for damages in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Even under the general rule that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be narrowly construed, the loss at issue here is plainly the type that Congress intended the government to recompense.
If the provisions of the statute stopped at that point, there is no question that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover on proof that his property was carelessly damaged by customs employees. But after providing a waiver of sovereign immunity, the FTCA goes on to list a number of exceptions, much like an insurance policy which initially grants coverage in broad terms and then refines it by a series of exclusions.
The purpose of strictly construing the waiver of sovereign immunity is served once the outer limits of the government’s *310liability are demarcated. Thereafter, the specific exceptions that Congress listed should not be interpreted expansively against the citizen to defeat the general waiver, but rather should be limited to their terms. As the Supreme Court said in Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 31, 73 S.Ct. 956, 965, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953):
“Of course, these modifications are entitled to a construction that will accomplish their aim, that is, one that will carry out the legislative purpose of allowing suits against the Government for negligence with due regard for the statutory exceptions to that policy. In interpreting the exceptions to the generality of the grant, courts include only those circumstances which are within the words and reason of the exception.”
It is important, therefore, to look to the language and logic of the exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(e). By its terms, it excludes any claim “arising in respect of ... the detention of any goodsWebster’s Third International New Dictionary 1934 (1968) defines “in respect of” to mean “as to: as regards: insofar as concerns: with respect to.” These definitions indicate that the statutory exception is directed to the fact of detention itself, and that alone. The language is not broad enough to exempt a claim for damage occurring “during” detention. In reaching the contrary conclusion, the district court reviewing § 2680(c) in S. Schonfeld Co. v. SS Akra Tenaron, 363 F.Supp. 1220, 1223 (D.S.C. 1973), said that “the statute specifically bars ‘any claim’ arising out of the detention of goods.” As noted, however, the statutory language is “in respect of,” not “arising out of” — a subtle but nevertheless significant distinction.
Further support for my interpretation of § 2680(c) is provided by Alliance Assurance Co. v. United States, 252 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1958), in which the Second Circuit held that Congress did not intend the statutory exception to bar actions based on the negligent destruction, injury or loss of goods in the possession of the customs authorities. Observing that § 2680(b) expressly bars actions “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail, the court reasoned:
“If Congress had similarly wished to bar actions based on the negligent loss of goods which governmental agencies other than the postal system undertook to handle, the exception in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(b) shows that it would have been equal to the task. The conclusion is inescapable that it did not choose to bestow upon all such agencies general absolution from carelessness in handling property belonging to others.”
Id. at 534. In A-Mark, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 593 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1978), the Ninth Circuit also applied this reasoning to a factual situation similar to the one at hand, and held that § 2680(c) did not bar recovery for damages to an article incurred during detention.
By contrast, neither of the appellate decisions that have denied recovery for damages analyzed the language or policy of § 2680(c) before coming to their conclusion. See United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft, 662 F.2d 1372 (11th Cir. 1981); United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, 501 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1974). It is also noteworthy that even though Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460, 100 S.Ct. 647, 62 L.Ed.2d 614 (1980), did not resolve the conflict between the circuits, the Supreme Court did reverse the decision of the Court of Claims which had relied in part upon an expansive interpretation of § 2680(c) that would bar recovery for damage to detained goods.
In summary, I am persuaded that the interpretation placed upon § 2680(c) by the Second and Ninth Circuits is correct. The United States had a legal right to detain the plaintiff’s property without liability for the damages which might be caused by the denial of possession. However, the government is not immune from liability for the harm it did to the property while it was being detained. I would reverse the judgment of the district court.