Court Opinion

ID: 9442610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:52:58.402365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:09.153715
License: Public Domain

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I do not agree with my brethren in this case, and, because the point is of general importance in a new field of litigation, I *591state briefly my reasons. I do not think that the Federal Tort Claims Act created or enlarged any legal rights or liabilities as such; it was merely a consent by the United States to be sued for torts. The liabilities for which the Government consented to be sued were those for which a private individual would be liable under like circumstances. The Act so says in unmistakable language. As to a private individual, it is agreed by the court that, as was held in Lewis v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation,1 no liability for wrongful death exists in this jurisdiction after one year from the death. As to an individual the liability itself, not merely the remedy, expires. Under the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as I read it, the same rule applies to the liability of the Government.
The court holds that the limitation provision of the Federal Act not only limits but also extends the time and expands the liability. It does not read that way, and I do not think it was intended to have that result. The provision reads, so far as here pertinent: “A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless action is begun thereon within two years after such claim accrues or within one year after the date of enactment of this amendatory sentence, whichever is ¡later, * * My view is that that provision was merely a maximum limitation upon the time within which the Government consented to be sued, a reasonable action on the part of Congress in view of the much longer periods prescribed by many state statutes for various tort actions.

. 949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 339, 177 F.2d 654.