Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally, the Federal Essay

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 1335 words ( 4 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 4

Page 1 of 4

Federal Tort Claims Act

Traditionally, the federal government was immune from lawsuits by its citizens under a doctrine known as sovereign immunity. Theoretically, this immunity was justified because people would necessarily have disagreements with the government and resorting to the court system to help resolve those disputes could have resulted in a tremendous waste of time and energy. However, the situation left people with no solution when they were harmed by a person acting for the government, even if the action had nothing or little to do with the government's sovereignty. For example, under strict sovereign immunity, a person is unable to recover harms for routine torts such as slip-and-falls. Perhaps even more worrisome was the fact that, under strict sovereign immunity, people were unable to recover for intentional harms and torts inflicted by the government or government agencies, even when those harms violated federal laws. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) was the government's solution to this problem. The FTCA does not allow all lawsuits against the government for actions by government employees, but does provide very specific scenarios where the government can be sued for tortious conduct, as well as guidelines as to the appropriate method of making a claim against various government agencies.

Overview of the FTCA

When determining whether a lawsuit is permissible under the FTCA, a potential litigant needs to review several key components because governmental liability differs from liability outside of the governmental context. For example, the idea of respondeat superior is extremely limited in claims under the FTCA: "Only federal employees can be sued under the FTCA, not independent contractors hired by the federal government (unless they are treated like employees)" (NOLA, 2013). In addition, "the negligent or wrongful conduct must have been done within the scope of the defendant's employment" (NOLA, 2013). Furthermore, the FTCA does not cover all torts. "In general, only claims of negligence -- as opposed to intentional misconduct -- are allowed (though some claims for intentional misconduct can be brought against certain federal law enforcement officers)" (NOLA, 2013).

Stuck Writing Your "Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally, the Federal" Essay?

View All Our Example Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally, the Federal Essay

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

Finally, the purpose of the FTCA is to abrogate sovereign immunity, not provide an underlying claim. On the contrary, "he claim must be based on -- and permitted by -- the law of the state in which the misconduct occurred" (NOLA, 2013).

FTCA and Intentional Torts

While the FTCA generally abrogates the concept of sovereign immunity, it does not completely eliminate the notion. There are a number of exceptions to governmental liability under the FTCA. Whether or not the exceptions apply "frequently becomes the central issue in a lawsuit brought under the FTCA. Notwithstanding the FTCA's general reference to and incorporation of state law, the interpretation and applicability of any of the statute's exceptions are matters of federal law" (Fuller, 2011). For the most part, intentional torts are absolutely not covered by the FTCA. This makes sense, as a person committing an intentional tort is breaking the law, and, therefore, presumably not acting within the scope of his or her authority on the job. Moreover, when a government worker acts in a tortious manner, it is generally clear to the person subjected to the tortious behavior that such conduct is outside of the actor's official conduct.

FTCA and Law Enforcement

The situation becomes more complex when the actor is a member of law enforcement. A person who is talking to a clerk at the I.R.S. is well aware that the clerk has no right to use bodily force against them. Therefore, any tortious behavior by the clerk would clearly be outside of that clerk's job responsibilities and duties. However, law enforcement officers are one type individual that might legitimately exercise the use of force in carrying out their jobs. Moreover, their legitimate use of force, and the very real consequences of what could occur to a victim if the victim were to use self-defense in response to that force, makes law enforcement officer who engage in tortious behavior a real danger to the public. Therefore, while the….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally The Federal" (2013, April 04) Retrieved June 6, 2026, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/federal-tort-claims-act-traditionally-federal-88890

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally The Federal" 04 April 2013. Web.6 June. 2026. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/federal-tort-claims-act-traditionally-federal-88890>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally The Federal", 04 April 2013, Accessed.6 June. 2026,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/federal-tort-claims-act-traditionally-federal-88890
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example