Federal Tort Claims Act
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a significant piece of legislation enacted in 1946 that allows individuals to seek compensation for injuries caused by the negligent actions of federal government employees while they are performing their duties. This act was established to address the limitations imposed by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which traditionally protected the federal government from being sued without its consent. Under the FTCA, if a federal employee injures a third party in the course of their official work, the government can be held liable.
However, there are important limitations to this liability. For instance, the act does not allow military personnel to sue the government for injuries incurred while on duty. This was reinforced by Supreme Court rulings in cases involving veterans, including those exposed to hazardous substances like Agent Orange. Additionally, if a private contractor working with the federal government is negligent, the contractor may be held liable, but not the government itself.
While the FTCA permits recovery for certain damages, it explicitly prohibits punitive damages, focusing instead on compensatory damages meant to cover actual losses. Overall, the FTCA plays a crucial role in balancing the need for accountability of the federal government with the protections granted under sovereign immunity.
Federal Tort Claims Act
Date: 1946
Description: Statute that enabled private citizens to sue the government in civil tort actions in federal court.
Significance: The Federal Tort Claims Act allows people to sue when a federal employee harms a third party or private property by committing an intentional tort or by negligence. The Supreme Court later barred military personnel from suing the federal government for injuries suffered while performing their jobs.
The Federal Tort Claims Act was passed in 1946 to protect third parties injured by the actions of federal government employees. If a federal employee, acting within the scope of his or her employment, injures a third party, then the federal government can be held liable for the employee’s actions.
Historically, the federal government was protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which prevented a lawsuit’s being filed against a government authority without the government’s consent. The 1946 act limits the protection of the doctrine and allows third parties to seek compensation.
However, when the lawsuit arises out of injury to military personnel, acting within the scope of their service, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot be sued under the act. Vietnam veterans exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange filed a class action suit against the federal government and the herbicide’s manufacturers. In one case, In re “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation (1980), the manufacturers reached a pretrial settlement with several of the veterans and their families. The suit against the federal government was dismissed by the lower court, and the Court refused to hear the appeals by the veterans. The Court continued to maintain that the act does not extend to suits filed by military personnel. In Hercules v. United States (1996), the Court stated that this exclusion is still viable.
Additionally, the Court refuses to impose liability when a private business contracting with the federal government attempts to hold the government responsible for negligent acts performed by the business. The injured third party can seek compensation from the business but not from the government.
However, when the federal government is liable, the Court has enforced the provisions of the act. In Molzof v. United States (1992), a veteran suffered irreversible brain damage because of negligence at a Veterans’ Administration hospital. The lower court granted damages under the act but refused to award damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. The lower court held that awarding such damages would be providing punitive damages, which the act expressly prohibits; the act prohibits awarding damages solely for the purpose of punishing the government for its actions. The Court reversed the decision, finding that although the award of such damages may have a punitive effect, it should be considered compensatory.