Mcintyre V USA Ruling
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
13 of 27 DOCUMENTS EMILY McINTYRE and CHRISTOPHER McINTYRE as co-administrators of the Estate of John L. McIntyre, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-CV-10408-RCL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAS- SACHUSETTS 447 F. Supp. 2d 54; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63217 September 5, 2006, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: McIntyre v. United States, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D. Mass., May 31, 2006) CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In the first portion of a bifurcated trial, plaintiffs, administrators of a decedent's estate, sought damages from defendant United States for the murder of their decedent, who was killed by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informants. The administrators brought suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq., and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229. The court held an eighteen-day bench trial. OVERVIEW: The court found that the United States was liable to the administrators, because the FBI agent, acting within the scope of his employment, disclosed information to the informants sufficient for them to identify the decedent as a government informant, and the decedent's death was a foreseeable consequence of that disclosure. To succeed in their tort claim against the United States, the administrators were required to establish that (1) the FBI agent owed the decedent a duty, (2) he breached that duty, (3) the decedent suffered injury, (4) the FBI agent's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the decedent's injury, and (5) in breaching his duty to the decedent, the FBI agent was acting within the scope of his employment. As the FBI agent knew, three additional informants had been killed previously after the FBI agent disclosed to the FBI informants that the others were providing or would provide information that would implicate the FBI informants in serious criminal activity. The court awarded damages in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, §§ 2 and 6, of the Massachusetts Wrongful Death Statute. OUTCOME: The court held that the United States was liable to the administrators in the amounts of $ 100,000 as damages for loss of consortium for the benefit of the decedent's mother, one of the administrators, $ 1,876 in funeral and burial expenses, and $ 3,000,000 as compensation for the decedent's conscious suffering. CORE TERMS: informant, murder, memo, criminal activity, organized crime, supervisor, guidelines, squad, interview, investigative, decedent, divorce, killed, law enforcement, handling, involvement, suffering, teletype, renumbered, disclosure, provide information, loansharking, kill, surviving spouse, re-opened, conscious, scope of employment, cooperating, omission, leak LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Elements [HN1] The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq., provides, in substance, that the United States may be sued for money damages for personal injury or death caused by the negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions of its employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b). Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Exclusions From Liability > Discretionary Functions [HN2] Disclosing a government informant's identity is not an act embraced within the discretion granted to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > General Overview Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Elements [HN3] The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq., operates as a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. One relevant limitation on the waiver is that the act or omission targeted by the FTCA suit must be one for which a private person could be sued under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b)(1). Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Elements [HN4] To be imputed to the United States, the act or omission of a government employee must have been committed within the scope of his or her employment. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b)(1). Torts > Wrongful Death & Survival Actions > General Overview [HN5] The Massachusetts Wrongful Death Statute provides that the wrongful death claim may be brought against someone who was negligent or someone who by willful, wanton, or reckless conduct causes death. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 2. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Elements [HN6] The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq., creates a claim for personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a government employee acting within the scope of his employment. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b)(1). Wrongful acts under the FTCA, insofar as investigative and law enforcement officers are concerned, include certain intentional torts like assault, battery, and malicious prosecution, for causes of action accruing after March 16, 1974. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(h). Torts > Negligence > Duty > Foreseeability of Injury Torts > Negligence > Proof > Elements [HN7] Speaking in terms of classical tort principle, when one claims that negligence lies in the commission of an act, a defendant's duty not to behave negligently typically extends to include all those whom the defendant might reasonably have foreseen to be potential victims of the negligence. Torts > Negligence > Duty > General Overview Torts > Negligence > Standards of Care > Reasonable Care > General Overview [HN8] As a general principle of tort law, every actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid physical harm to others. Torts > Negligence > Duty > General Overview [HN9] A duty exists when an actor realizes or should realize that his action involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of a third person which is intended to cause harm even though the third person's conduct is criminal. Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Employees Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > Application of State Law [HN10] With respect to an employee of the United States, federal law defines the nature and contours of his or her federal responsibilities. Whether the employee was acting within the scope of those responsibilities, however, is determined by state law. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Scope of Employment Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > Factors [HN11] Under Massachusetts law, conduct of an employee is within the scope of his or her employment if (1) it is of the kind he or she is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; and (3) it is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. The scope of an employee's employment is not construed restrictively. An employee's scope of employment is delineated by his or her actual and customary duties, not simply those formally described. Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > General Overview [HN12] An act may be within the scope of employment although consciously criminal or tortious. Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > General Overview Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > Application of State Law Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > Violations of Instructions [HN13] Under Massachusetts law, forbidden and criminal acts may be within the scope of employment. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Employees [HN14] See 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(h). Torts > Vicarious Liability > Employers > Scope of Employment > Factors [HN15] The fact that the predominant motive of an agent is to benefit himself does not prevent an act from coming within the scope of employment as long as the act is otherwise within the purview of his authority. Under Mas- sachusetts law, an employee acts outside the scope of employment only if his motivations are purely personal and in no way connected to his official duties. An employee's motivation is a question of fact for the factfinder. Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > Allocation Torts > Negligence > Causation > Proximate Cause > Foreseeability [HN16] To establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must show that his or her injuries were within the reasonably foreseeable risks of harm created by the defendant's negligent conduct. Torts > Negligence > Causation > Proximate Cause > Foreseeability Torts > Negligence > Causation > Proximate Cause > Intervening Causation [HN17] Under Massachusetts law, criminal conduct is not an intervening or superseding cause so long as it is foreseeable. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > Federal Tort Claims Act > Remedies [HN18] The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq., to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but it is not liable for punitive damages or interest prior to judgment. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2674. Torts > Wrongful Death & Survival Actions > Remedies > General Overview Torts > Wrongful Death & Survival Actions > Remedies > Apportionment Torts > Wrongful Death & Survival Actions > Remedies > Compensatory Damages > General Overview [HN19] Under §§ 2 and 6 of the Massachusetts Wrongful Death Statute, a defendant may be liable for compensatory damages in the amount of the fair monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, including the loss of reasonably expected net income and loss of consortium, reasonable funeral and burial expenses, and the conscious suffering of the decedent. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, §§ 2, 6. Damages under § 2 are awarded to the administrators of the decedent's estate, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 2, with damages for the fair monetary value of the decedent awarded for the benefit of the person entitled to recover for his or her loss, as determined by § 1 of the statute.