Sheridan v. United States
Encyclopedia
Sheridan v. United States, 47 U.S. 392 (1988) was a court case in the United States debating what constitutes a claim "arising out of" an assault or battery within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act(FTCA). The Supreme Court held the FTCA's intentional tort exception did not apply.
Background: Naval medical aide, Carr, became intoxicated after his shift and 3 of his co-workers found him face down on a hospital floor. They attempted to bring him to the emergency room but he broke away and showed that he had a gun. The three co-workers fled and did nothing more. The intoxicated serviceman then fired several single shots into a car on a public street near Bethesda Naval Hospital and injured plaintiffs and damaged their car.
Procedural History: District court dismissed holding the claim is barred by the intentional tort exception of the FTCA. Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s holding.
Issue: Is plaintiff’s claim one that “is arising out of” an assault or battery within the meaning of 28 USC 1680(h)?
Analysis:
District Court’s Analysis: Generally, the government is not liable for the intentional torts committed by its employees. However, Plaintiffs are arguing the co-workers were the negligent party in allowing Carr to continue in his drunken stupor. The government would have been liable under MA law, and the government would have been liable if Carr was not a government employee. But, because Carr was a government employee, 4th circuit precedent was to bar recovery.
28 USC 1346(b) – gives individuals the right to sue the government
28 USC 2680(h) – takes back that right for injuries arising out of assault or battery.
Supreme Court's Analysis:
In this case, the injury arises from two claims: negligence by Carr’s co-workers, and assault by Carr.
In United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963), the Supreme Court held the intentional tort exception did not apply when prison guards were negligent in preventing a prisoner from assault. This case could have been decided because the claim arose out of the negligence of the prisoner guards, and the assault was just the natural causal effect of the negligence, or because
The Supreme Court held that if the only issue was whether the Government should be held liable for Carr’s action, then the intentional tort exception would preclude litigation under the FTCA.
However, the “Government voluntarily adopted regulations that prohibit the possession of firearms on the naval base and that require personnel to report the present of any such firearm, and by further voluntarily undertaking to provide care to a person who was visibly drunk and visibly armed, the Government assumed responsibility to ‘perform its good Samaritan task in a careful manner.” Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 65 (1955).
Carr’s status as a Federal Employee as well as his act being intentional as opposed to negligent was irrelevant since the co-workers’ negligence was at issue.
Holding: District Court’s holding reversed and case remanded.
(1) http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/392/
(2) http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/392/case.html
Background: Naval medical aide, Carr, became intoxicated after his shift and 3 of his co-workers found him face down on a hospital floor. They attempted to bring him to the emergency room but he broke away and showed that he had a gun. The three co-workers fled and did nothing more. The intoxicated serviceman then fired several single shots into a car on a public street near Bethesda Naval Hospital and injured plaintiffs and damaged their car.
Procedural History: District court dismissed holding the claim is barred by the intentional tort exception of the FTCA. Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s holding.
Issue: Is plaintiff’s claim one that “is arising out of” an assault or battery within the meaning of 28 USC 1680(h)?
Analysis:
District Court’s Analysis: Generally, the government is not liable for the intentional torts committed by its employees. However, Plaintiffs are arguing the co-workers were the negligent party in allowing Carr to continue in his drunken stupor. The government would have been liable under MA law, and the government would have been liable if Carr was not a government employee. But, because Carr was a government employee, 4th circuit precedent was to bar recovery.
28 USC 1346(b) – gives individuals the right to sue the government
28 USC 2680(h) – takes back that right for injuries arising out of assault or battery.
Supreme Court's Analysis:
In this case, the injury arises from two claims: negligence by Carr’s co-workers, and assault by Carr.
In United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963), the Supreme Court held the intentional tort exception did not apply when prison guards were negligent in preventing a prisoner from assault. This case could have been decided because the claim arose out of the negligence of the prisoner guards, and the assault was just the natural causal effect of the negligence, or because
The Supreme Court held that if the only issue was whether the Government should be held liable for Carr’s action, then the intentional tort exception would preclude litigation under the FTCA.
However, the “Government voluntarily adopted regulations that prohibit the possession of firearms on the naval base and that require personnel to report the present of any such firearm, and by further voluntarily undertaking to provide care to a person who was visibly drunk and visibly armed, the Government assumed responsibility to ‘perform its good Samaritan task in a careful manner.” Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 65 (1955).
Carr’s status as a Federal Employee as well as his act being intentional as opposed to negligent was irrelevant since the co-workers’ negligence was at issue.
Holding: District Court’s holding reversed and case remanded.
(1) http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/392/
(2) http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/392/case.html