Molzof v. United States

• Citation: 502 U.S. 301,112 S.Ct. 711,116 L.Ed.2d 731
• Decision Date: 14 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-838,90-838
• Parties: Shirley M. MOLZOF, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert E. Molzof, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES
• Court: United States Supreme Court

502 U.S. 301

112 S.Ct. 711

116 L.Ed.2d 731

Shirley M. MOLZOF, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert E. Molzof, Petitioner

v UNITED STATES.

No. 90-838.

Argued Nov. 4, 1991.

Decided Jan. 14, 1992.

Syllabus

The District Court awarded the guardian ad litem of petitioner Molzof's since-deceased husband damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA or Act) for supplemental medical care for injuries suffered by Mr. Molzof as a result of the negligence of federal employees, but refused to award damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that damages of the latter two types were barred by the FTCA's prohibition on "punitive damages," 28 U.S.C. § 2674.

Held:

1. Section 2674—under which "[t]he United States shall be liable [on] tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable . . . for punitive damages" (emphasis added)—bars the recovery only of what are legally considered "punitive damages" under traditional common-law principles; i.e., those whose recoverability depends upon proof that the defendant has engaged in intentional or egregious misconduct and whose purpose is to punish. Pp. 304-312.

(a) This reading is consistent with the above-quoted language of § 2674, which makes clear that the extent of FTCA liability is generally determined by reference to state law, under which "punitive damages" is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning, of which Congress was presumably aware when it adopted the Act. In contrast, the Government's view that "punitive damages" must be defined as those "that are in excess of, or bear no relation to, compensation" is contrary to the statutory language, which suggests that to the extent that a plaintiff may be entitled to damages that are not legally considered "punitive damages," but which are for some reason above and beyond ordinary notions of compensation, the United States is liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual." Pp. 304-308.

(b) The reading adopted here is also consistent with the Act's structure and provides courts with a workable standard for determining when a plaintiff is improperly seeking "punitive damages." The Government's argument that a congressional intent to define punitive dam- ages by contrasting them with "actual or compensatory damages" is demonstrated by § 2674's second clause—which limits governmental liability in States permitting only punitive damages in wrongful-death actions to "actual or compensatory damages, measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from . . . death"—is unpersuasive, since it is undermined both by the well-established common-law meaning of "punitive damages" and by the Government's concession that the "pecuniary injuries" standard does not apply in determining compensatory damages in non-wrongful-death tort suits. Moreover, the Government's interpretation of "punitive damages" would be difficult and impractical to apply, creating enormous problems in determining the actual loss suffered in particular kinds of cases. Furthermore, the fact that this Court has not relied on the common law in interpreting some of § 2680's exceptions to FTCA liability is not persuasive evidence that it should do the same here, since many of those exceptions—e.g., § 2680(a)'s exception for claims based on the performance of a "discretionary function"—simply have no common-law antecedent, while others serve a qualitatively different purpose than § 2674's bar on "punitive damages," having been designed to protect from disruption certain important governmental functions—e.g., the handling of mail under § 2680(b). Pp. 308-312.

(c) The Court of Appeals erred in deciding that the FTCA barred Mrs. Molzof from recovering damages for her husband's future medical expenses and his loss of enjoyment of life. It is undisputed that those claims are based solely on a simple negligence theory. Thus, the damages sought are not "punitive damages" under the FTCA because they do not fall within the common-law meaning of that term. P. 312.

2. However, the case must be remanded for the lower courts to resolve in the first instance whether the damages sought are recoverable as compensatory damages under the law of Wisconsin, the State in which Mr. Molzof's injuries occurred. P. 312.

911 F.2d 18 (CA7 1990), reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Daniel A. Rottier, Madison, Wis., for petitioner.

Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the scope of the statutory prohibition on awards of "punitive damages" in cases brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680.

I

Petitioner Shirley Molzof is the personal representative of the estate of Robert Molzof, her late husband. On October 31, 1986, Mr. Molzof, a veteran, underwent lung surgery at a Veterans' Administration hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. After surgery, he was placed on a ventilator. For some undisclosed reason, the ventilator tube that was providing oxygen to him became disconnected. The ventilator's alarm system also was disconnected. As a result of this combination of events, Mr. Molzof was deprived of oxygen for approximately eight minutes before his predicament was discovered. Because of this unfortunate series of events, triggered by the hospital employees' conceded negligence, Mr. Molzof suffered irreversible brain damage, leaving him permanently comatose.

Mr. Molzof's guardian ad litem filed suit in District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA or Act) seeking damages for supplemental medical care, future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of life. Respondent (the Government) admitted liability, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of damages. The District Court determined that the free medical care being provided to Mr. Molzof by the veterans' hospital was reasonable and adequate, that Mrs. Molzof was satisfied with those services and had no intention of transferring Mr. Molzof to a private hospital, and that it was in Mr. Molzof's best interests to remain at the veterans' hospital because neighboring hospitals could not provide a comparable level of care. In addition to ordering the veterans' hospital to continue the same level of care, the court awarded Mr. Molzof damages for supplemental care physi- cal therapy, respiratory therapy, and weekly doctor's visits—not provided by the veterans' hospital.

The District Court refused, however, to award damages for medical care that would duplicate the free medical services already being provided by the veterans' hospital. Similarly, the court declined to award Mr. Molzof damages for loss of enjoyment of life. Mr. Molzof died after final judgment had been entered, and Mrs. Molzof was substituted as plaintiff in her capacity as personal representative of her late husband's estate.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. 911 F.2d 18 (1990). The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that, given the Government's provision of free medical care to Mr. Molzof and Mrs. Molzof's apparent satisfaction with that care, any award for future medical expenses would be punitive in effect and was therefore barred by the FTCA prohibition on "punitive damages." Id., at 21. With respect to the claim for Mr. Molzof's loss of enjoyment of life, the Court of Appeals stated that Wisconsin law was unclear on the question whether a comatose plaintiff could recover such damages. Ibid. The court decided, however, that "even if Wisconsin courts recognized the claim for loss of enjoyment of life, in this case it would be barred as punitive under the Federal Tort Claims Act," ibid., because "an award of damages for loss of enjoyment of life can in no way recompense, reimburse or otherwise redress a comatose patient's uncognizable loss. . . ." Id., at 22. We granted certiorari to consider the meaning of the term "punitive damages" as used in the FTCA. 499 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1305, 113 L.Ed.2d 239 (1991).

II

Prior to 1946, the sovereign immunity of the United States prevented those injured by the negligent acts of federal employees from obtaining redress through lawsuits; compensation could be had only by passage of a private bill in Con- gress. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 24-25, 73 S.Ct. 956, 962, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953). The FTCA replaced that "notoriously clumsy," id., at 25, 73 S.Ct., at 962, system of compensation with a limited waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976). In this case, we must determine the scope of that waiver as it relates to awards of "punitive damages" against the United States. The FTCA provides in pertinent part as follows:

"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, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (emphasis added).

As this provision makes clear, in conjunction with the jurisdictional grant over FTCA cases in 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the extent of the United States' liability under the FTCA is generally determined by reference to state law. See United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 153, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 1852, 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963); Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6-7, 11, 82 S.Ct. 585, 589-590, 591, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962); Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 318-319, 77 S.Ct. 374, 376-377, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957); Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 64-65, 68-69, 76 S.Ct. 122, 124-125, 126-127, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955); ...