Klein v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 304,Docket 25500.,304 |
| Citation | 268 F.2d 63 |
| Parties | Ernest KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Oswald Vischi, of Raphael, Searles, Levin & Vischi, New York City (Bernard Koenigsberg, of Raphael, Searles, Levin & Vischi, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Robert A. Morse and Myron Beldock, Asst. U. S. Attys., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff seeks damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b), because he was detained and searched when he went on board the S.S. Statendam at the Holland-America pier in Hoboken, New Jersey, on the morning of November 6, 1957, to meet his brother and sister-in-law before they cleared customs on their arrival from Europe. He concedes that he did not have the necessary Customs pass to be within the customs lines, but claims he was negligently exposed to the elements, chilled, and subjected to mental indignity by the detention and search.
The question here presented is not, as plaintiff argues, whether he has asserted in his complaint a charge of "negligence," but whether Congress intended to bar this type of suit, under whatever legal theory brought, by its exclusion from the waiver of governmental immunity in the Tort Claims Act of "Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest * *." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). We agree with the court below that it did. D.C.E.D.N.Y., 167 F.Supp. 410. Here the alleged consequences to plaintiff directly flowed from the detention. Thus the instant action is wholly analogous to the several attempts to sue the United States on a theory of "negligence" for an arresting officer's use of unreasonable force in making an arrest; these claims have always been held barred as within the above exception. Stepp v. United States, 4 Cir., 207 F.2d 909, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 933, 74 S.Ct. 627, 98 L.Ed. 1084; Alaniz v. United States, 10 Cir., 257 F.2d 108. Decisions upholding government immunity in suits by federal prisoners for the negligence of their jailors are also a persuasive analogy here. Van Zuch v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 118 F.Supp. 468; Jones v. United States, 7 Cir., 249 F.2d 864, 865; and see Feres v. United States, 340...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricca v. United States
...v. United States, 241 F.Supp. 8 (E.D.S.C.1965); Nichols v. United States, 236 F.Supp. 260 (N.D.Miss.1964). See also Klein v. United States, 268 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1959); Collins v. United States, 259 F.Supp. 363 Although the issue is a close one, further development of the record is required ......
-
Liuzzo v. United States, Civ. A. No. 79-72564.
...v. United States, 528 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. den. 426 U.S. 921, 96 S.Ct. 2627, 49 L.Ed.2d 374 (1976); Klein v. United States, 268 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1959); Smith v. United States, 330 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich. 1971); Nichols v. United States, 236 F.Supp. 260 (N.D.Miss.1964). Rather, the......
-
Johnson by Johnson v. U.S., 939
...v. United States, 777 F.2d 822 (2d Cir.1985) (affirming dismissal of claim for destruction of goods detained). In Klein v. United States, 268 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir.1959), a claim for negligent exposure to the elements was held barred by Sec. 2680(h) as "arising out of ... false arrest" becaus......
-
Winston v. United States
...found those contrary decisions "persuasive analogy" in resolving another question of interpretation of this same Act. See Klein v. U. S., 268 F.2d 63, 64 (2d Cir. 1959). The majority's categorical statement that the judiciary may not find with propriety that this particular Act contains any......