Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Shearer
473 U.S. 52
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1985-06-27
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- holding that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a claim for negligent supervision of a government employee who committed battery
- holding, by a plurality, that an action based on negligent supervision of a serviceman who abducted and murdered another serviceman was barred by the FTCA
- noting that allegations “go[ing] directly to the ‘management’ of the military” that “might impair essential military discipline” lie at the “core” of rule’s concerns
- noting that allegations “go[ing] directly to the ‘management’ of the military” that “might impair essential military discipline” he at the “core” of rule’s concerns
- holding nonjusticiable a suit brought by the mother of a member of the military who was killed allegedly as a result of the Army's negligence while he was off duty
- finding that FTCA’s wavier of sovereign immunity does not apply to claims “arising out of assault [or] battery.”
- holding that the third rationale should be considered “controlling”
- noting that decision to discharge a serviceman is an “essentially professional” one and that respondent’s “attempt to hale Army officials into court to account for their supervision and discipline of [a serviceman] must fail”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Shearer. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 505 opinions
UNITED STATESv. SHEARER,473 U.S. 52(1985)
UNITED STATESv. SHEARER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE
ESTATE OF SHEARER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 84-194.
Argued February 25, 1985
Decided June 27, 1985
BURGER, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B, and III, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part II-A, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined,post, p. 59. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment,post, p. 60. POWELL, J., took no part in the decision of the case.
I
Respondent is the mother and administratrix of Army Private Vernon Shearer. While Private Shearer was off duty at Fort Bliss and away from the base, he was kidnaped and murdered by another serviceman, Private Andrew Heard. A New Mexico court convicted Private Heard of Shearer's murder and sentenced him to a term of 15 to 55 years' imprisonment.
Respondent brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act,28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and2671et seq., claimingPage 54that the Army's negligence caused Private Shearer's death. Respondent alleged that Private Heard, while assigned to an Army base in Germany in 1977, was convicted by a German court of manslaughter and sentenced to a 4-year prison term. Upon his discharge from that confinement in Germany, the Army transferred Private Heard to Fort Bliss. Respondent alleged that, although the Army knew that Private Heard was dangerous, it "negligently and carelessly failed to exert a reasonably sufficient control over" him and "failed to warn other persons that he was at large." App. 14.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the Government. The Court of Appeals reversed.723 F.2d 1102(CA3 1983). The court held thatFeresv.UnitedStates,340 U.S. 135(1950), did not bar respondent's suit because "[g]enerally an off-duty serviceman not on the military base and not engaged in military activity at the time of injury, can recover under FTCA."723 F.2d, at 1106. The court also held that respondent's suit was not precluded by the intentional tort exception to the Act,28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The Court of Appeals noted that respondent's complaint alleged negligence and reasoned that "if an assault and battery occurred as a `natural result' of the government's failure to exercise due care, the assault and battery may be deemed to have its roots in negligence and therefore it is within the scope of the FTCA."Id., at 1107.1
We granted certiorari.469 U.S. 929(1984). We reverse.
II
A
The Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to "[a]ny claim arising out of assault [or] battery,"28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), and it is clear that respondent'sPage 55claim arises out of the battery committed by Private Heard. No semantical recasting of events can alter the fact that the battery was the immediate cause of Private Shearer's death and, consequently, the basis of respondent's claim.
Respondent cannot avoid the reach of § 2680(h) by framing her complaint in terms of negligent failure to prevent the assault and battery. Section 2680(h) does not merely bar claimsforassault or battery; in sweeping language it excludes any claimarising out ofassault or battery. We read this provision to cover claims like respondent's that sound in negligence but stem from a battery committed by a Government employee. Thus "the express words of the statute" bar respondent's claim against the Government.UnitedStatesv.Spelar,338 U.S. 217,219(1949).
The legislative history of § 2680(h), although sparse, is entirely consistent with our interpretation. There is no indication that Congress distinguished between "negligent supervision" claims andrespondeat superiorclaims, with only the latter excluded under the Act. Instead it appears that Congress believed that § 2680(h) would bar claims arising out of a certain type of factual situation — deliberate attacks by Government employees. For example, Congress was advised by the Department of Justice that the exception would apply "where some agent of the Government gets in a fight with some fellow . . . [a]nd socks him." Tort Claims: Hearings on H.R. 5373 and H.R. 6463 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1942).
It is clear that Congress passed the Tort Claims Act on the straightforward assurance that the United States would not be financially responsible for the assaults and batteries of its employees. See Tort Claims Against the United States: Hearings on S. 2690 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 39 (1940). No one suggested that liability would attach if the Government negligently failed to supervise such an assailant.Page 56
This legislative understanding was reconfirmed in 1974 when Congress amended § 2680(h) to waive sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional torts of law enforcement officers. See Pub.L.93-253, § 2,88 Stat. 50. The premise of the legislation was that unamended § 2680(h) "protect[ed] the Federal Government from liability when its agents commit[ted] intentional torts such as assault and battery." S. Rep. No. 93-588, p. 3 (1973). Once again, Congress did not hint that it thought the Government's liability for an assault and battery turned on the adequacy of supervision or warnings.2
The Court's interpretation of parallel exceptions in § 2680 also supports our decision. InUnited States, v.Neustadt,366 U.S. 696(1961), the Court held that the exception in § 2680(h) for claims "arising out of . . . misrepresentation" covers cases in which negligence underlies the inaccurate representation. And inKosakv.United States,465 U.S. 848(1984), we held that the exception for claims "arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs" includes a claim for negligent handling. Because Congress viewed these exceptions in the same light as the exception at issue here, see,e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1945), it is inescapable that the phrase "arising out of assault [or] battery" is broad enough to encompass claims sounding in negligence.
Today's result is not inconsistent with the line of cases holding that the Government may be held liable for negligently failing to prevent the intentional torts of a non-employee under its supervision. See,e.g., Panellav.United States,216 F.2d 622(CA2 1954) (Harlan, J.). In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress' focus wasPage 57on the extent of the Government's liability for the actions of itsemployees. See generallyPanella, supra, at 626. Thus, in referring to assaults and batteries in § 2680(h), Congress at least intended to exclude claims arising from such intentional torts committed by Government employees.
B
Our holding inFeresv.United States,340 U.S. 135(1950), was that a soldier may not recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries which "arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service."Id., at 146. Although the Court inFeresbased its decision on several grounds,
"[i]n the last analysis,Feresseems best explained by the `peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors, the effects of the maintenance of such suits on discipline, and the extreme results that might obtain if suits under the Tort Claims Act were allowed for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty.'"United Statesv.Muniz,374 U.S. 150,162(1963), quotingUnited Statesv.Brown,348 U.S. 110,112(1954).
TheFeresdoctrine cannot be reduced to a few bright-line rules; each case must be examined in light of the statute as it has been construed inFeresand subsequent cases. Here, the Court of Appeals placed great weight on the fact that Private Shearer was off duty and away from the base when he was murdered. But the situs of the murder is not nearly as important as whether the suit requires the civilian court to second-guess military decisions, seeStencel Aero EngineeringCorp. v.United States,431 U.S. 666,673(1977), and whether the suit might impair essential military discipline, seeChappellv.Wallace,462 U.S. 296,300,304(1983).Page 58
Respondent's complaint strikes at the core of these concerns.3In particular, respondent alleges that Private Shearer's superiors in the Army "negligently and carelessly failed to exert a reasonably sufficient control over Andrew Heard, . . . failed to warn other persons that he was at large, [and] negligently and carelessly failed to . . . remove Andrew Heard from active military duty." App. 14. This allegation goes directly to the "management" of the military; it calls into question basic choices about the discipline, supervision, and control of a serviceman.4
Respondent's case is therefore quite different fromBrooksv.United States,337 U.S. 49(1949), where the Court allowed recovery under the Tort Claims Act for injuries caused by a negligent driver of a military truck. Unlike the negligence alleged in the operation of a vehicle, the claim here would require Army officers "to testify in court as to each other's decisions and actions."Stencel Aero EngineeringCorp. v.United States, supra, at 673. To permit this type of suit would mean that commanding officers would have to stand prepared to convince a civilian court of the wisdom of a wide range of military and disciplinary decisions; for example, whether to overlook a particular incident or episode, whether to discharge a serviceman, and whether and how to place restraints on a soldier's off-base conduct. But as we noted inChappellv.Wallace, such "`complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, . . . and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.'"462 U.S., at 302, quotingGilliganv.Morgan,413 U.S. 1,10(1973).Page 59
Finally, respondent does not escape theFeresnet by focusing only on this case with a claim of negligence, and by characterizing her claim as a challenge to a "straightforward personnel decision." Tr. of Oral Arg. 37. By whatever name it is called, it is a decision of command. The plaintiffs inFeresandStencel Aero Engineeringdid not contest the wisdom of broad military policy; nevertheless, the Court held that their claims did not fall within the Tort Claims Act because they were thetypeof claims that, if generally permitted, would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness. Similarly, respondent's attempt to hale Army officials into court to account for their supervision and discipline of Private Heard must fail.
III
Special Assistant to the Attorney General Holtzoff, testifying on behalf of the Attorney General, described the proposed Federal Tort Claims Act as "a radical innovation" and thus counseled Congress to "take it step by step." Tort Claims Against the United States: Hearings on H.R. 7236 before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 22 (1940). We hold that Congress has not undertaken to allow a serviceman or his representative to recover from the Government for negligently failing to prevent another serviceman's assault and battery. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals isReversed.
JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of this case.
- Page 54 Judge Garth dissented on the ground that respondent's claim is barred byFeresand the intentional tort exception to the Act. ↩
- Page 56 This is true even though Congress had reason to believe that "several incidents" of "abusive, illegal and unconstitutional `no-knock' raids" by federal narcotics agents were the result of inadequate supervision. See S. Rep. No. 93-588, p. 2 (1973). ↩
- Page 58 It is immaterial that this suit was brought by a representative of the serviceman; indeed,Feresitself was brought by an executrix.Feresv.United States340 U.S. 135,136-137(1950). ↩
- Page 58 Although no longer controlling, other factors mentioned inFeresare present here. It would be anomalous for the Government's duty to supervise servicemen to depend on the local law of the various states, seeid., at 143, 146; and the record shows that Private Shearer's dependents are entitled to statutory veterans' benefits. Seeid., at 144-145. ↩