Law Commons^™

Preserving Discretion Without Sacrificing Deterrence: Federal Governmental Liability In Tort, Harold J. Krent

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Preserving Discretion Without Sacrificing Deterrence: Federal Governmental Liability In Tort, Harold J. Krent

Harold J. Krent

No abstract provided.

Feres To Chappell To Stanley: Three Strikes And Servicemembers Are Out, Jonathan P. Tomes

University of Richmond Law Review

With its decision in United States v. Stanley, the United States Supreme Court completed the virtual evisceration of servicemembers' constitutional rights begun thirty-seven years before in Feres v. United States. Although the courts have never expressly held that servicemembers do not enjoy the same constitutional rights that other citizens enjoys the Supreme Court's decision in Stanley has left servicemembers without an effective remedy to vindicate their constitutional rights. Rights without means of enforcing them are meaningless.

United States V. Johnson, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Tail Wags The Dog: Judicial Misinterpretation Of The Punitive Damages Ban In The Federal Tort Claims Act, Jeff L. Lewin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Post-Discharge Failure To Warn: A New Theory Allowing Access To Ftca Recovery, Denise A. Garrison

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Surrogate Immunity: The Government Contract Defense And Products Liability, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The government contract defense is an affirmative defense that shields a manufacturer from liability if the product causing injury complied strictly with design specifications set forth in a government procurement contract. The defense was first used by public works contractors to bar claims against them for damage to land and other property. However, in recent years, product manufacturers have invoked the government contract defense to avoid liability to third parties for defectively designed products supplied to the government.

Despite widespread judicial acceptance of the government contract defense in products liability litigation, a number of issues are still being hotly debated. …

United States V. Shearer, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

Using The Federal Tort Claims Act To Remedy Property Damage Following Customs Service Seizures, Richard F. Neidhardt

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note explains the general application of the FTCA to tort claims asserted against the federal government. Part II demonstrates the inadequacy of current judicial arguments regarding the adjudication of detention-related property damage claims under section 2680(c). Part III presents the. policy considerations behind the FTCA and concludes that those considerations allow courts to interpret the Act to cover detention-related property damage claims.

Claim Requirements Of The Federal Tort Claims Act: Minimal Notice Or Substantial Documentation?, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note finds both the Adams and Swift positions unsatisfactory. Part I contends that Adams misconstrued the legislative history of the FTCA amendments by applying a minimal notice standard and then argues that Swift contravenes the amendments' fairness policy by permitting ambiguous, overreaching documentation requests. Part II contends that courts should interpret section 2675's "presented the claim" language as an accommodation between two competing Congressional objectives: presuit claims settlement and fair treatment of claimants. The Note proposes that until the Department of Justice modifies its current claims regulations, courts should toll the statute of limitations whenever an individual's claim includes …

Denial Of Atomic Veterans' Tort Claims: The Enduring Fallout From Feres V. United States, J. Thomas Morina

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toxic Substances Litigation In The Fourth Circuit, Francis E. Mcgovern

University of Richmond Law Review

Personal injuries caused by toxic substances have generated problems of major concern to our social, political and legal systems. Reports in the news media concerning harm caused by toxic substances and expressions of public awareness of potential dangers associated with exposure to toxic substances are commonplace. Legislatures, administrative agencies and courts at both federal and state levels have begun to devote substantial energy to addressing issues raised by exposure to toxic Substances. Scientific, industrial, financial, and legal communities are seeking to deal with these problems from a number of different perspectives. Just as terms such as "Love Canal" and "asbestosis" …

The Effect Of The Feres Doctrine On Tort Actions Against The United States By Family Members Of Servicemen, Richard S. Lehmann

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Torts And The Federal Torts Claims Act, Michael W. Dolan

University of Richmond Law Review

The relatively recent expansion of the liability of federal employees for so-called constitutional torts and the accompanying contraction of the immunity of those employees against suits for such torts have resulted in significant problems for the federal government, its employees, and even for victims of official misconduct. After briefly describing the law of constitutional torts and official immunity, this article will examine a proposal to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to make the Government the exclusive defendant in constitutional tort suits.

From Feres To Stencel: Should Military Personnel Have Access To Ftca Recovery, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note reevaluates the Feres doctrine in light of legal developments of the past three decades. It concludes that the FTCA should be extended to military claims. It discusses the arguments that military claims will burden vital government functions and shows that the exception to liability under the present FTCA, particularly the exception for "discretionary actions" by government employees, would adequately protect all legitimate military interests.

Loe V. Armistead: The Availability Of An Alternative Remedy As A Bar To Extending Bivens, Ralph G. Santos

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Failure To Meet Their Appointed Rounds - Tort Liability Of Postal Service Supervisory Personnel For Lost Or Mishandled Mail, Robert A. Froehlich

Santa Clara Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congressional Treatment Of Confidential Business Information: Proposals To Avert Unwarranted Disclosure, Barbara J. Smith

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Integrating Governmental And Officer Tort Liability, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

The legislative and judicial dismantling of sovereign immunity is among the more significant and celebrated reforms of recent American administrative law. In many instances, this development has given those seeking damages for wrongful governmental action their first and only defendant. Even in situations in which litigants already had a cause of action against individual public officials, making the government amenable to suit has enhanced the chances of actual recovery, since officials often lack the means to satisfy judgments rendered against them. The immunity from liability enjoyed by public officials also has undergone a complex series of changes. Though still in …

Liability Of The United States For Maritime Torts, Walkley E. Johnson Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The United States Government owns and operates by far the largest fleet in the Americas. It is a fleet which includes not only the high profile carriers, cruisers and destroyers but a miscellany of tugs, barges, tankers, frigates, car floats and lighters. It includes cargo vessels as well as warships. Thus, the potential for the commission of maritime torts is manifest simply from the number and variety of government vessels at sea. Add the myriad responsibilities exercised by Government agencies such as the United States Coast Guard, and the potential for tortious involvement is enormous.

Torts- State Tort Immunity Extended To Administrators And Intern Of State Supported Hospital

University of Richmond Law Review

The doctrine of sovereign immunity as developed in England and adopted in the United States has its roots in feudalism. While it is not clear how this monarchistic doctrine came to be adopted in the new and belligerently democratic republic of America, it has become firmly entrenched in our jurisprudential system. Sovereign immunity as applied to tort actions means that the state, in consequence of its sovereignty, is immune from liability for negligence, except where it has expressly waived immunity by legislative enactment or judicial decision. While the Federal Tort Claims Act waives federal tort immunity in certain situations, the …

The Federal Tort Claims Act: A Substantive Survey, Robert N. Johnson

University of Richmond Law Review

The enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on August 2, 1946, provided the most comprehensive waiver of sovereign immunity encountered in the Federal Claims System.

Problems Of Private Claimants Under Miller Act Payment Bonds, Paul H. Gantt, Robert D. Wallick, James M. Proctor

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Workmen's Compensation - Recovery For Federal Prisoners Under Federal Torts Claims Act - 87 S. Ct. 382 (1966), Robert P. Kahn

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Physical Injury And The Misrepresentation Exception Of The Federal Tort Claim Act § 2680(H), Anon

Washington Law Review

Plaintiff, operating a dragline while improving the channel of a small creek, struck and detonated a natural gas pipeline which was shown on Government site plans to be located outside the work area. Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover for his personal injuries. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, contending that the case was bottomed on misrepresentation and therefore excluded from the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2680(h). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted Defendant's …

Physical Injury And The Misrepresentation Exception Of The Federal Tort Claim Act § 2680(H), Anon

Washington Law Review

Plaintiff, operating a dragline while improving the channel of a small creek, struck and detonated a natural gas pipeline which was shown on Government site plans to be located outside the work area. Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover for his personal injuries. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, contending that the case was bottomed on misrepresentation and therefore excluded from the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2680(h). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted Defendant's …

Torts - Federal Tort Claims Act - Government Liability For Torts Of Servicement. Williams V. United States, 352 F.2d 477 (1965), Kent Millikan

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eleventh Amendment, Judicial Code, And Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Restrict Ability Of United States To Implead A State In Connection With Suit Commenced By A Private Citizen--Parks V. United States, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Suit was brought by an individual against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover compensation for property damage alleged to have been caused by the Government's negligence in constructing and maintaining the physical components\ of a flood-control project in New York. Relying upon New York's promise to hold the United States harmless on any liability arising from damage of this nature, the Government impleaded the state. On a motion before the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to dismiss the state as a third-party defendant, held, motion granted. The Federal …

Third Party Actions Under Workmen's Compensation Act, J. Westwood Smithers

University of Richmond Law Review

At common law any person who wrongfully injures another, intentionally or negligently, is liable to compensate such other person for his damages if the injured person is himself free from contributory fault. If the tortfeasor is a servant, acting within the scope of his employment, his employer (or master) is also liable to answer for the wrong under the long-established doctrine of respondeat superior,with certain exceptions in which immunity is granted to the state, or subdivisions thereof, and to charitable institutions. The trend in modern times has been to narrow, or to entirely abolish, such immunity. By the Federal Tort …

Recovery By Federal Prisoners Under The Federal Tort Claims Act, Frank J. Woody

Washington Law Review

May a federal prisoner, who has been injured due to the negligence of a federal employee while incarcerated in a federal prison, recover from the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act?'