Immunities and the Firefighter's Rule; Federal Torts Claims Act

From Torts Wypadki

Firefighter's Rule

1. Firefighter's Rule (Firemen's Rule): firefighters can’t bring suit for injuries sustained fighting negligent fires; compensation of such professionals already reflects the ordinary risks of negligently created fires inherent in their job, but arsonists can be sued by firefighters.

• in essence - a form of assumption of risk.
• the rule also addresses concern that victims would be deterred from seeking assistance if liabiltiy to firefighters was imposed on negligent behavior which created the emergency.
• historic use - assumption of risk - preclude works recovery for injuries on the job and that the modern trend to absorb assumption of risk into comparative fault argues for not precluding some recovery culpable D's. Evolved out of the idea that an employee shouldn't be able to sue their employer and a servant shouldn't be able to sue their master.

Immunities

1. Charitable Immunity: historically immune from tort liability; immunity was justified as a means to protect the work charities do/ funds should not be diverted from the cause; the restatement and many states have abolished charitable immunity because of liability insurance and business-like operation of large charities
   1. Schultz v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark: priest abused boy
      1. Charitable Immunity Statute: Says that a beneficiary of the works of the charity cannot sue the charity, but a stranger to the charity can.
      2. ISSUE: Whether the Charitable Immunity Act bars a claim by a beneficiary of a charitable institution based on the charity’s alleged negligence in hiring?
      3. Finding an exception to charitable immunity here is in disfavor as a matter of public policy
      4. The Legislature should consider the scope of the law again and its intended application
      5. HOLDING: Under the Act, the charity is not liable for negligence. The court called on the legislature to modify the law
      6. Doesn't include the person who was negligent. He could still be sued.

1. Spousal Immunity: historically could not sue each other; many said suits would damage marital harmony; most states have eliminated spousal immunity and those who retain it have limitations on it; immunity is not applied against property or economic torts. Some say that they could use this and sue each other to recover from the insurance company if they were in an accident.
2. Parent-Child Immunity: precludes tort actions btw parents and non-adult children; parent-child immunity still exists in some form in many jurisdictions; never been held to bar property or economic torts, but does preclude intentional torts; some states have completely abolished it but most states have only partially abrogated it; there is a reluctance to have judicial review over acceptable parenting
3. Governmental Immunity: Federal government has specifically retained immunity for certain enumerated intentional torts, (IE: assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, and interference w/ contract rights) except in the case of acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers resulting in claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

• Under common law, immunities were complete and prevent tort suits against the gov’t; immunity for discretionary functions but not ministerial acts.
• The federal government is also immune from claims based on strict liability.

1. 1. Downs v. US: FBI Agents (liability for actions of FBI agents resulting in the death of innocent victims of an airplane hijacking)
      1. Issue 1: Is the action a discretionary function?
         1. If the standard here was for him to “exercise judgment”, a host of other cases were wrongly decided
         2. Immunized discretion includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications, or schedules of operations. Where there is room for policy judgment and decision there is discretion.
         3. 28 U.S.C.§ 2680(a) immunizes gov’t employees formulating policy; FBI agents were not involved in formulating policy; the hijacking policy had already been formulated
      2. Issue 2: Did the trial court err in finding O’Connor was not negligent?
         1. Yes, there was a better alternative; he should have continued the waiting game; he violated FBI policy and disregarded guidelines which resulted in deaths
         2. The extent to which “an actor will be excused for errors in judgment under (emergency) circumstances is qualified by training and experience he may have, or be expected to have, in coping with the danger or emergency with which he is confronted.”
   2. Discretionary functions: policy-making decision
   3. Ministerial acts: gov’t conduct which implements or executes policy decisions

Federal Torts Claims Act

• Federal Torts Claims Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear actions for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by negligence or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Gov’t while acting w/in the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the US, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance w/ the law of the place where the act or omission occurred(Downs).
• Limited waiver of sovereign immunity
• Must file administrative claim first
• Agency has 6 months to decide; if denied, P may sue in Fed. D. Ct.
• Tort liability judged with reference to state law
• If under st. law, a private actor would have a duty
• Conduct must have been done by fed. employee within the scope of employment
• Exceptions: based on type of conduct or cause of action
  • Cannot sue when gov’t is doing gov’t things (discretionary duty)
  • No strict liability – must prove negligence