Doe v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1435-Civ-JLK.,81-1435-Civ-JLK. |
| Citation | 533 F. Supp. 245 |
| Parties | Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Ana H. Barnett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
Rosalyn L. Cohen, Miami, Fla., for defendant.
ORDER SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On Sunday, June 24, 1979, plaintiff Jane Doe was forcibly raped in a United States Post Office located at 16400 West Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Jane Doe's assailant was subsequently apprehended, convicted, and sent to jail for his crime.
As a consequence of her rape, Jane Doe brought suit against the Government1 claiming that it was negligent in failing to adequately protect her, as a postal patron, from violent criminal acts.
The Court conducted a non-jury trial on this matter on January 25, 1982. The trial lasted one full day, during which time the Court heard the arguments and evidence presented by counsel. Based on the trial, and the record as a whole, the Court hereby finds that the Government conducted itself in a negligent manner and consequently is liable to the plaintiff in the amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00).
This opinion sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is divided into four sections: The first discusses jurisdiction, the second presents the facts, the third examines the legal issues, with emphasis on the question of foreseeability, and the fourth deals with damages.
Suit was brought by plaintiff pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The Court believes that Section 1346 provides a clear basis for federal jurisdiction. In a suit brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, moreover, the United States may be held liable as a party-defendant to the same extent and in the same manner as any private party, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, but is immune from interest prior to judgment and from punitive damages. Id.
At the time of the rape, Jane Doe was 24 years old. She resided in North Miami Beach, was employed by the Dade County Manager's Office, and held degrees from Broward Community College and Florida Atlantic University.
On the day of the rape, Jane Doe returned home from Catholic Mass at approximately 7:30 p. m. She addressed some invitations which she planned to mail that evening. Soon thereafter, the plaintiff rode her bicycle to the nearby 163rd Street shopping center to purchase stamps. She then proceeded to the North Miami Beach Post Office2 with the invitations to ensure that they would go out in the next morning's mail. She arrived at the post office at approximately 8:15 p. m.3 When she entered the post office lobby and approached the desk towards the rear of the lobby, another postal patron, an adult male, was leaving the lobby.4
Jane Doe saw another adult male open the door and peer into the lobby area. That man, a stranger, then entered, cornered the plaintiff, and brutally raped her. No one else entered the post office during the entire time Jane Doe was in the post office.
Jane Doe subsequently escaped from her assailant and, although battered and wearing shredded clothing, rode home. She reported the rape to the police and then went to the Rape Treatment Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital where she was treated and released.
The North Miami Beach Post Office, leased by the Government from private individuals, is a one story concrete block and stucco structure located on the corner of two streets. It is divided into two main areas, a service section and a lobby which houses rental lockboxes. These areas, divided by two glass doors, both border on the street.
The lobby area is lit by overhead lights.5 Its windows begin approximately six feet from the ground. One pair of double doors opens onto the sidewalk, providing the only access to and from the street when the service area is closed; to see inside the lobby from the street, one must open these doors and peer inside.
The lobby itself is rectangular. The lockboxes stand on the wall directly across from the double doors to the street as well as on the adjacent wall, directly opposite from the wall containing the doors to the service area.6 The desk at which Jane Doe was preparing to mail her invitations when she was raped is located near the end of the lobby, against the wall containing the double doors to the street.
In the months prior to and including the date of the rape, the service area was open until 5 PM on weekdays, and 12 noon on Saturdays. The rental lockbox area was open to the public on a 24 hour a day basis.
On March 2nd and 3rd, 1979, the post office conducted a survey as a result of several lockbox break-ins to determine whether the Postal Service should continue leaving the lockbox area open 24 hours a day. Based on the survey, a post office administrator recommended that the hours be shortened to 5:00 a. m. to 8:00 p. m. on Monday through Saturday and to 8:30 a. m. to 1:00 p. m. on Sunday. The post office administrator received permission to implement the recommended changes at some time prior to June 24, 1979. The proposed changes, which would have closed the lobby at the time of the rape, were apparently instituted the day after the rape occurred.7
There are two major issues in this case: whether the defendant may be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act; and, if so, whether it was negligent in leaving the lobby area open to the public at large on a 24 hour a day basis without any protection afforded to postal patrons.
The defendant contended that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), bars this action. That section provides, in pertinent part, that the Act does not apply to:
"any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused."
28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).
The current rule, derived from the basic authority of Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953), is set forth in Barton v. United States, 609 F.2d 977 (10th Cir. 1979):
If a government official in performing his statutory duties must act without reliance upon a fixed or readily ascertainable standard, the decision he makes is discretionary and within the exception of the Tort Claims Act. Conversely, if there is a standard by which his action is measured, it is not within the exception. The statute provides that if the act of the official is discretionary, it is not actionable even though the discretion is abused.
The plaintiff cites several office regulations9 which she contends set forth readily ascertainable standards for postal decisions about the permissible minimum level of protection afforded to postal patrons.10 She argues that pursuant to Barton, such decisions are non-discretionary and outside of the statutory exception.
The Court agrees with the plaintiff. The regulations provide sufficiently ascertainable criteria concerning decisions about the minimum level of protection and security afforded to postal customers. Moreover, even without the existence of the specific post office regulations cited, the general negligence standard applicable to business premises open to the public is sufficiently articulable and ascertainable so as to provide a standard upon which safety decision may be based.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal court must look to the law of the place where the act or omission occurred in determining whether liability exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Therefore, in the present suit for negligence, the law of the State of Florida applies. Under Florida Law:
Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); see also Johnson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 339 F.Supp. 1178 (M.D.Fla.1972).
In determining whether the Government was negligent, the Court must determine whether the Government owed a duty to the plaintiff, whether the Government breached that duty, and whether Jane Doe's injuries were proximately caused by such a breach. Simon v. Tampa Elec. Co., 202 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The imposition of a duty is contingent upon the foreseeability of the type of act to which the plaintiff fell victim. Firestone v. Lippincott, 383 So.2d 1181, 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Vining v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977) on remand 355 So.2d 226 (Fla.App.1978).
A post office customer should be viewed as a "business invitee"11 for the purpose of determining what duty, if any, was owed by the defendant to plaintiff.
In this context, the duty of care owed to a business invitee is "protection from those crimes which may be shown to be reasonably foreseeable", Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). "Where it is foreseeable that the plaintiff will suffer the injury sued on, the supplier of the service has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid unreasonable risks to that plaintiff in performance of his service." Navajo Circle, Inc. v. Development Concepts, 373 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Defendant contends that criminal acts are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. U.S., 82-5578
...that plaintiff-appellee, Jane Doe, had been injured by the negligence of defendant-appellant, the United States. The District Court, 533 F.Supp. 245, found that the Government owed a duty of care to plaintiff, that it breached such duty, that plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by ......