Lack v. United States, No. 16054.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | GARDNER, , and WOODROUGH and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit |
| Citation | 262 F.2d 167 |
| Parties | John Monroe LACK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 16054. |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1958 |
262 F.2d 167 (1958)
John Monroe LACK, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 16054.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
December 23, 1958.
Eugene P. Donnelly, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Peter H. Schiff, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Morton Hollander, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by plaintiff, Lack, from judgment dismissing his complaint against the United States, wherein he sought damages for substantial and permanent injuries sustained by him while serving a sentence in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. The complaint alleged that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the officials and employees of the penitentiary in failing to provide him with a safe place to work, and in failing to instruct or warn him as to the dangerous nature of his work. Plaintiff was ordered by a penitentiary employee, acting within the scope of his employment, to make repairs on the mechanism of an overhead garage door situated within the confines of the penitentiary. The plaintiff while performing such work was injured when the door suddenly moved upward, knocking him from the ladder on which he was standing while working.
Plaintiff bases his right to bring this suit on the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b) and 2671 et seq. Section 1346(b) provides, in part: "* * * the district courts * * * shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, * * * for * * * personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." Section 2674 provides: "The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances * * *."
The Government filed motion for summary judgment, urging that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not authorize suits against the United States by federal prisoners. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the action.
The only issue presented by this appeal is whether, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal prisoner may recover damages from the United States for injuries sustained during the period of his incarceration, caused by the negligence of prison officials or employees.
The Supreme Court has not passed upon the issue before us in this case. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and all district courts which have considered the question have held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not give the inmate of a federal prison a cause of action against the Government for injuries caused by the negligence of prison officials or employees. Jones v. United States, 7 Cir., 249 F.2d 864; Van Zuch v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 118 F. Supp. 468; Shew v. United States, D.C. M.D.N.C., 116 F.Supp. 1; Sigmon v. United States, D.C.W.D.Va., 110 F.Supp. 906. A number of unreported district
No purpose would be served by a detailed discussion of the reasoning upon which the decisions just cited are based. The opinions speak for themselves. The opinions are largely based upon the rationale of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152. The Government as a basis for affirmance relies upon Feres and the cases heretofore cited. Feres holds that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty (and not on furlough), resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The Supreme Court, in considering the construction to be given the Act, states that it finds no committee reports or floor debates or other aids to determine the effect the statute was designed to have upon the problem it was considering. The Court says (340 U.S. at page 138, 71 S.Ct. at page 155): "Under these circumstances, no conclusion can be above challenge, but if we misinterpret the Act, at least Congress possesses a ready remedy." Liability to the active soldier was neither expressly included nor excluded by the Act. Although the Court found and enumerated considerations persuasive of liability, it concluded, for reasons set out in the opinion, that liability did not exist. The Court states (340 U.S. at page 146, 71 S.Ct. at page 159):
"* * * Without exception, the relationship of military personnel to the Government has been governed exclusively by federal law. We do not think that Congress, in drafting this Act, created a new cause of action dependent on local law for service-connected injuries or death due to negligence. We cannot impute to Congress such a radical departure from established law in the absence of express congressional command. * * *"
Liability to a prisoner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winston v. United States, No. 84
...character, at some length. 340 U.S. at 145-146, 71 S.Ct. 153. And some courts ?€” notably the Eighth Circuit in Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (1956) ?€” have felt that the existence of a compensation system for prisoners injured in work activity similarly imports an intent to exclude ......
-
United States v. Muniz, No. 464
...287. 3. James v. United States, 280 F.2d 428 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 845, 81 S.Ct. 88, 5 L.Ed.2d 69; Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (C.A.8th Cir.); Jones v. United States, 249 F.2d 864 (C.A.7th Cir.). 4. James v. United States, 280 F.2d 428 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, ......
-
Kauffman v. Moss, No. 17686.
...the appellant has not been injured and his complaint in the District Court sets forth no cause of action under the Civil Rights Act. 262 F.2d at 167. However, the language quoted above has subsequently been repudiated by the Sixth Circuit in Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 19......
-
Healy v. United States
...countervailing circumstances have made it extremely unlikely that Congress intended it to apply. Lack v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 167; Jones v. United States, 7 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 864 (federal 14 Feres v. United States, 1950, 340 U.S. 135, 141, 71 S.Ct. 153, 157, 95 L.Ed. 152......
-
United States v. Muniz, No. 464
...287. 3. James v. United States, 280 F.2d 428 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 845, 81 S.Ct. 88, 5 L.Ed.2d 69; Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (C.A.8th Cir.); Jones v. United States, 249 F.2d 864 (C.A.7th Cir.). 4. James v. United States, 280 F.2d 428 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, ......
-
Winston v. United States, No. 84
...character, at some length. 340 U.S. at 145-146, 71 S.Ct. 153. And some courts ?€” notably the Eighth Circuit in Lack v. United States, 262 F.2d 167 (1956) ?€” have felt that the existence of a compensation system for prisoners injured in work activity similarly imports an intent to exclude ......
-
Kauffman v. Moss, No. 17686.
...the appellant has not been injured and his complaint in the District Court sets forth no cause of action under the Civil Rights Act. 262 F.2d at 167. However, the language quoted above has subsequently been repudiated by the Sixth Circuit in Mulligan v. Schlachter, 389 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 19......
-
Healy v. United States
...countervailing circumstances have made it extremely unlikely that Congress intended it to apply. Lack v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 167; Jones v. United States, 7 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 864 (federal 14 Feres v. United States, 1950, 340 U.S. 135, 141, 71 S.Ct. 153, 157, 95 L.Ed. 152......