Litif v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1170
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Litif estate sued the United States under FTCA for Litif's 1980 murder by Bulger, alleging Connolly leaked Litif's cooperation offer to Bulger.
- District court awarded $1.15 million to Litif’s family and estate and held Connolly breached a duty of care by leaking information.
- The government appeals on statute of limitations, proof of the leak and causation, and conscious-pain-and-suffering damages; Litif estate cross-appeals for higher pain-and-suffering damages.
- Accrual under FTCA uses a discovery rule; the claim accrued when the plaintiff knew injury and a causal connection to the government, or could with reasonable diligence know it.
- Salemme proceedings (1998–1999) revealed FBI-Bulger-Flemmi ties; public reporting and later decisions provided the first well-documented basis linking the FBI conduct to Litif’s death.
- The court ultimately affirms the damages award and addresses limitations, causation, hearsay, and pain-and-suffering issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA accrual under discovery rule | Litif knew enough by 1999 to trigger accrual, not later. | Accrual occurred earlier due to emboldening/leak theories before Salemme decision. | Accrual not before September 10, 2001; discovery rule applied to timing. |
| Causation: did Connolly leak cause Litif's murder | Leak created foreseeable risk leading to murder; Bulger killed Litif. | Evidence too thin to prove leak caused murder. | Evidence sufficient to support causation and liability under FTCA. |
| Admissibility of Halloran statements as hearsay/competency | Massachusetts competency rule made Halloran statements admissible. | Federal hearsay rules apply; competency cannot trump hearsay. | Halloran statements excluded as hearsay; other evidence supports liability. |
| Damages for conscious pain and suffering | Award too low; Litif suffered prolonged torture. | No clear error; record supports brief conscious pain before death. | No abuse of discretion; affirmed district court's $350,000 award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donahue v. United States, 634 F.3d 615 (1st Cir. 2011) (caution on emboldening theory and accrual timing)
- Rakes v. United States, 442 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (discovery rule and knowledge of government-causal connection standard)
- Skwira v. United States, 344 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2003) (knowledge of facts and local notoriety for accrual timing)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court 1979) (discovery rule for FTCA accrual)
- Davis-Hussey, 670 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2012) (damages and causation framework in Bulger-related FTCA cases)
- McIntyre v. United States, 367 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2004) (emboldening vs. leak theories of liability)
- Halloran v. United States, n/a (n/a) (cited for informant-leak context (discussed in opinion))