Hart v. US, PCA 86-04370 WEA.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. PCA 86-04370 WEA.,PCA 86-04370 WEA. |
| Parties | Anne M. HART, individually, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Robert L. Crongeyer, Beggs & Lane, Fran L. Frick, Pensacola, Fla., for plaintiffs.
Michael P. Finney, Asst. U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., Joan M. Bernott, Sp. Litigation Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Lt. Col. William C. Kirk, Major James N. Hatten, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Dept. of the Army, Major James M. Kinsella, USAF, General Litigation Div., Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
In this case plaintiffs have brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., for intentional infliction of mental distress caused by the misidentification of remains as Lt. Col. Thomas Hart, persistence in that identification, and continued carrying of Lt. Col. Hart's name as "accounted for" even after the Graves Registration Board rescinded the identification. Before the court is plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The case is one of first impression presenting a unique factual situation and a unique application of the Federal Tort Claims Act to those facts. A recitation of the facts will be helpful to a full understanding of this court's ruling.1
On December 21, 1972, during the Vietnam conflict, an American Air Force AC 130 was shot down by enemy fire in Laos. Sixteen American military personnel were aboard. Within two hours two survivors who had parachuted safely from the plane before it crashed were rescued. Early the following morning enemy soldiers went to the crash site. A captive enemy later reported that dismembered remains of five or six individuals were scattered about the crash site and that he never heard any reports of survivors.2 Later that day an American team searched the crash site. No other survivors were found but part of an arm and hand were recovered. Fingerprint analysis later identified these body parts as being of Captain Birch, whose status was changed to killed in action. Thirteen other crew members were listed as missing in action, including Lt. Col. Thomas Trammell Hart, III.
In 1973 an American reconnaissance aircraft flying over Northern Laos photographed a large area of grass in the configuration of "1973TH" or "1573TH". The military intelligence analysis of this photo contained specific reference to Lt. Col. Hart, then Captain Hart.3
In 1978, a status review board convened and recommended the status of Lt. Col. Hart be changed from MIA to KIA.4
In September, 1982, members of the National League of Families visited the crash site. Mrs. Hart, a plaintiff here, was a member of that group. This group discovered two bone fragments which were turned over to the government and sent to the United States Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaiian Islands (CIL).5
In December, 1983, eight additional bone fragments were found by an advance team from the CIL. In February, 1985, a CIL team excavated the site and recovered approximately 50,000 bone and dental fragments along with personal effects and ID tags, all of which were transported to the Hawaii lab. (Complaint, paragraph 10, Answer, paragraph 10) Analysis of these was undertaken at the CIL and the CIL recommended identification of 13 individuals from these fragments.6
Among those identified was Lt. Col. Hart. The CIL reported these findings to the Armed Services Graves Registration Board (ASGRO). The ASGRO accepted the identifications and the families were notified.
Mrs. Hart requested, and was refused, an independent forensic anthropologic examination of all 13 sets of remains. Thereafter she brought suit in the Central District of California for an injunction, but before hearing the Air Force allowed the independent examination of the remains identified as Lt. Col. Hart. Dr. Michael Charney, PhD, conducted the examination and concluded that the 7 small bone fragments which had been identified by CIL as those of Lt. Col. Hart could not have been so identified.7 The defendant admits that the remains identified as those of Lt.Col. Hart lacked the criteria necessary for identification pursuant to any recognized scientific procedure, and that the identification was based upon examination of the 7 bone fragments and the exclusion of other casualties involved in this crash. (Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions paragraphs 5 and 7)
Although Mrs. Hart's request for a permanent injunction was denied, the government asserted that, if the next of kin did not want to bury the remains, because of an independent examination throwing doubt upon the identification, the Air Force would accept return of the remains and they would just remain unclaimed remains kept in a mortuary. Hart v. Orr, No. C-85-4324 WHO (N.D.Cal.1985) (Transcript of Proceedings on July 18, 1985).8
In October of 1985, two events occurred. Ellis R. Kerley, PhD, was asked by the Army to conduct an evaluation of the procedures used at the CIL in identifying remains and the Air Force wrote Mrs. Hart, apparently without any regard for contrary assurances made to her in July, requiring that she arrange for disposal of the remains identified as her husband and advising that if she did not the Air Force would arrange burial of such remains as being those of her husband at Arlington National Cemetery.
In December of 1985 the inspection of the CIL was conducted. The inspection team was unable to make or confirm eleven of the thirteen proposed identifications with any scientific certainty. Dr. William Maples of the inspection team characterized CIL's failure to exercise proper standards of identification as "blatant". (Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, paragraph 14). The CIL had "apportioned co-mingled masses of unidentified remains into the known number of individuals involved in a common accident for release to the next of kin as individually identified remains."9
As a result of this investigation the Graves Registration Board rescinded the identification of Lt. Col. Hart, yet the departments of the Army and Air Force refused to place his name again on the unaccounted for list.10
Liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act is determined in accordance with state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) Florida law is applicable here. Under Florida law for the plaintiff to prevail in this action the following four elements must be established: 1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; 2) outrageous conduct; 3) the conduct must have caused the distress; and 4) the distress must be severe. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.2d 277 (Fla.1985).
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits on file ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. F.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
In the instant case, by affidavits of Dr. Jack Moser and Mrs. Hart, the mental distress of Mrs. Hart, its seriousness, and its cause, are proved. The government has presented no evidence to controvert the establishment of these elements, but has confined its opposition to plaintiffs' motion to the single issue of outrageousness.11
Adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965), the Florida Supreme Court held that:
Liability has been found only where the conduct is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!"
467 So.2d at 279. (Citation omitted)
The question of whether or not the complained of behavior rises to the level of outrageousness necessary to constitute the tort is a matter of law, not fact. Ponton v. Scarfone, 468 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The test is whether the behavior is "so outrageous in character, so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency ... atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Id. (quoting Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. McCarson, 467 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1985)).
Regarding summary judgment, the Supreme Court has directed:
The judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other, but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the defendant on the evidence presented. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the defendant's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the defendant. The judge's inquiry, therefore, unavoidably asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. U.S., 89-3193
...Judges. JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Anne Hart, 681 F.Supp. 1518, and the court's decision after a bench trial in favor of Vera Hart and Gillian Hart under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. Secs.......
- Amos v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama