*1 & INSURANCE BONDING MASSACHUSETTS STATES. UNITED CO. et al. v. 10, December 1956. Argued 1956. Decided 31. November
No. for petitioners. R. Kewer the cause With argued John Hogan M. and Edward A. him on the brief were John Crane.
Paul A. cause for the United Sweeney argued the him on brief were Solicitor General States. With Rankin, Herman Attorney Assistant General Doub and Marcuse. opinion Douglas
Mr. delivered Justice Court.
This suit under the Federal Tort Claims (b), money damages U. S. C. to recover §§ from the United States on account of the death of one Crowley, by negligent operation traveling caused employees various government cranes a federal arsenal located Massachusetts.1 The Act makes the *2 States liable for the of negligence employees United its “under circumstances where States, pri- the if a United person, vate would be liable to the in claimant accordance place with the law of the where the act or omission occurred.” (b). provision 28 S. C. 1346 That § U. makes of govern law Massachusetts of the United for this States tort.
The Massachusetts Death inAct, part, pro relevant vides that or person, agents whose by negli servants gence cause the death of not in employment another his or “shall service, be liable in the sum of less twenty than two thousand nor more than dollars, thousand to be assessed with to reference of his degree culpability or of of his or serv agents ants.” Mass. Ann. Laws, 1956, 229, c. 2C. The assess § ment of damages degree culpa with reference to the bility of the to tort-feasor, rather than with reference pecuniary by the amount of loss suffered next kin, damages punitive makes those nature. That has Supreme been the holding Judicial Court of Massa Howell, chusetts. As Macchiaroli v. 294 Mass. stated 144, 147, E. 905, 906-907, 200 N. “The chief characteristic Jacobs, penal.” of the statute is And Arnold v. 316 see ell, 81, 84, 923; Mass. 54 N. E. 2d Porter v. Sor 922, Mass. 182 N. E. 457, 460-461, 2d 838-839.
The Tort Claims C. however, provides 28 U. S. § that:
“The ... United States shall be liable the same and to the as a private manner same extent indi- Crowley Plaintiffs were the administratrix insurer Crowley’s employer. latter, having compensation paid to dependents, decedent’s the tort-feasor under was entitled sue Laws, Compensation Act. Mass. Ann. Workmen’s 152, 15. c. circumstances, but shall not like vidual under judgment punitive prior interеst liable for for damages. caused, any case wherein death was
“If, however, in com- the act or omission law or has been construed provides, plained occurred nature, provide, compensa- actual or shall be liable injuries pecuniary tory damages, measured the persons respectively, from such death to resulting in lieu brought, the action was for whose benefit added.) (Italics thereof.” *3 accordingly that, held since the The District Court compensatory” “actual was liable for or United States thе minimum “punitive” damages, and not for in limits contained the Massachusetts and maximum judgment It entered applicable. Death Act were not The Court plaintiffs $60,000. in the amount Death holding that the Massachusetts Appeals reversed, may maximum that Act, though sets the punitive, the Tort Claims in under recovered is on certiorari which F. The case here Act. 227 2d 385. of con- important question this granted to review we Tort Act. 350 S. 980. of the Claims U. struction making United States provision Act, of the The compensatory damages” liable “for actual in only punitive providеs of the “for law 1947 amendment. Alabama2 nature,” goes back to a wrong- only punitive damages for Massachusetts3 award 2 Sherrill, R. Co. v. Southern 1940, 7, § 123; 232 Code, Ala. Tit. Davis, Louisville & N. R. Co. 184, 731, 739-740; v. 193, 167 Ala. So. Cole, Walker, 695, 699-700; Jack Inc. 191, v. 198, 236 Ala. 181 So. 683, 240 So. 768. Ala. 1947, 31, 1949, January 1, to December period For the from provided $2,000 $15,000 maxi- for a minimum and Massachusetts ful deaths. in Controversies soon arose those two suits under the the Government main- taining that, since local law “punitive assessed damages,” it was not liable. Several bills were intro- remedy duced situation.4 But the agreed solution upon proposal Comptroller tendered General. reference to the Alabama and Massachu- spokesman setts rule, Comptroller General stated:5
“Since
those two states compensatory damages
not allowed,
are
all that
is required is to amend the
Federal Tort
say
Claims Act to
states
such
compensatory damages shall be allowed.
...
It
suggestion
believed that that
would eliminate the
discrepancy and would make the settlement
claims
exactly
in those two states to be
in accord with the
rules
in the
. .
.”
general
followed
other
states
.
Government seizes
this statement and like ones
Reports
(see
Rep.
the Committee
No.
S.
80th
Sess., p. 2;
Rep.
Cong.,
1st
H. R.
No.
80th
Cong.,
2)
argue
1st
Sess., p.
ceiling provided
that unless the
in the
law
respected,
discrimination
Massachusetts,
will be
United States
shown
*4
providing compensatory damages.
mum under Death Act
Mass.
Beatty
1947,
Fox,
216,
Acts
c. 506. See
v.
328 Mass.
4H. 80th 1st which would have made damаges punitive pro for United States liable where state law punitive damages; original vided for H. R. which in its repealed against puntive prohibition form would have award of damages. hearings, excerpts are in the Govern The of which furnished us brief, printed. are not ment’s compensatory- ceilings have dozen States
since over of the purpose argued is that sole It also damages. wrongful death permit recovery amendment was to awarded, damages could be punitive where the two States is It those States. not alter the measure of ceilings. as to Congress legislating was not true to the measure however, legislating as Congress was, recovered the United that could be amendment, As the 1947 the United a result of States. but for “punitive damages” liable not for became damages, the law the compensatory” “actual or punitive in nature.” provides damages “only adopted The S. C. 2674. measure of U. pecuniary injuries” resulting from the death. was “the provide dam- argued It is that Massachusetts does not ages “only punitive meaning in nature” within the Act; punitive dаmages end, serve remedial that even under that State’s recognized by the Massachusetts court Hustis, 441, 447, v. 237 Mass. Death Act. See Sullivan Savage, 130 N. E. Putnam v. Mass. 247, 249-250; is 83, 85, 138 N. E. 809. It said that Massachusetts provide punitive damages law not true since the does and are negligence latter are never awarded for alone to, of, addition lieu com- generally imposed These and related reasons are ad- damages. pensatory the Massachusetts measure of treating vanced for compensatory” damages of “actual or аs the measure under the Act. recoverable the United States liability reasoning. standard reject We provided by is at war with the one imposed The standard of under by Massachusetts. e., Death “with refer- —i. compensatory. degree” culpability ence to the —not “compensa- The standard under the Tort Claims Act e., pecuniary injuries” i. tory,” “measured result- *5 nothing from in the ing the death. There is Massachu- damages “pecuniary setts law measures the which injuries.” law, therefore, cannot taken to that can be define nature recоvered under the Tort Claims Act. punitive damages only
In are those States where wrongful death, on the amount allowed limitation liability policy placing has no relevance to the limits By on liability only compensatory. where are definition, upon degree are based culpability. legislature the defendant’s Where state imposes punitive measure, a maximum limit on such a it highest punishment has decided that this is the which imposed wrongdoer. limitation, should be on a This- concepts based it is on punishment, cannot control a recоvery from which all has eliminated con- of punishment. siderations
Nor can be concluded that amendment in designed remove discrimination Alabama and Massachusetts between the recoveries allowed suits against against Government and suits individual defendants. The amendment, fact, perpetuates those differences. States, recovery against suits those against and Government defendant will not be the same identical circumstances. Where degree pecuniary fault but high, injury slight, a large recovery represent degreе will of the individual culpability, defendant’s but the will Government be liable slight actually, damage amount of done. On hand, other fault slight, pecuniary but the injury great, the individual defendant’s simi- will larly be less than that the Government. These dif- in ferences are inherent the different measures of damages applicable in suits the Government private defendant where the State chooses *6 wrongful of measure provide punitive
to a in such a By adopting State death.. Government, the suits measure permit chose to these substantial Congress deliberately exist. We therefore cannot differences Congress has, time, provided at the same that infer that recoveries be identical. maximum (a) adoption chose was the Congress solution that punitive or compensatory of the local law—whether —to States, the existence of the determine “compensatory” for (b) “punitive” substitution of only the latter. provides where local law When damages, we Congress rejected liability “punitive” inoperative the way it and made conclude went whole imposition “punitive” governing rules of local law compensa- damages. adopted “actual or Congress When as tory by “pecuniary injuries,” damages,” measured liability in States that dam- the measure of those awarded did not “only punitive nature,” we conclude it ages damages the preserve “compensatory” aas limitation on damages. imposed “punitive” law on limitation local make tailoring of the Act to require It would considerable way. that We refuse the invitation to achieve read by judicial interpretation. result
Reversed. Harlan, concurring. Mr. Justice Although jоin opinion case, I in the Court’s in this importance impels me to add a word question Douglas problem what has written. The Mr. Justice stop I easy one, inquiry not an and do not think that can reading statute, plain with a literal the terms I though Taking, think we they may appear be. purpose within the wider context of the should, (2) § 2674 whole, I am not the Tort Claims Act as a still convinced $20,000 intended limitation statute to to recoveries apply under the Tort Claims Act. limitation, underlying reasoning applying (2) Appeals
of the Court of was that must philosophy of the Tort subverting overriding read as *7 is, that that the Government should be liable Claims private manner and to the same extent” as a “in same be individual under state law would liable. It therefore argued although (2) departed that from this § recovery compensatory when it made rather philosophy remedy than in instances where the state was every respect in punitive, section other should harmoniously philosophy, this and that construed in apply therefore maxima state statutes should to recov- private eries the Government well аs indi- as. though a viduals, punitive. even such statute But me that purpose it seems to whole and reason (2) was to be- § enactment differentiate private the Government and defendants tween recovery in particular “manner” and “extent” of cases I no applied, good giving where it and can find reason for only partial the section effect. In no case Alabama will a plaintiff or Massachusetts recover from the Gov- “in ernment the same manner” as he an would defendant, case, except individual and no fortuitоus circumstance, will he recover to “the extent.” In same if highly culpable both of these States a defendant causes small he pecuniary injury, “punished” will be a high at merely figure, pay whereas the Government the small will if compensation. merely amount of Or a careless defend- ant high pecuniary causes he is at a damage, punished low figure law, pay under state while the Government must heavy damage for the cases, done. both the effect of the statute is to make the Government liable a different private than a individual extent
manner different indeed, very was the circumstances; this, the same under why therefore do not see I of the amendment. purpose in “manner” and “extent” differentiation purposeful this of maximum recovery stop problem at should very statute byis recoveries. Since the Government private than a individual liable on different basis made than would every case a different amount pay and will why philosophy it offend the private individual, does than a make the liable for more the Act to Government pay? while it is true Thus, individuаl would Tort Claims Act the United States general the makes tanto very pro private defendant, purpose assimilation in States (2) prevent this therefore, It punitive. me, seems to that there is no reason re-establish assimilation recovery. matter of maximum this one allowable I Furthermore, unlikely find would *8 subject plaintiffs have intended to to a maximum which policy litiga- for reasons of irrelevant established the Tort de- tion under Claims Act. Massachusetts has of policy possibly cided that for reasons of because — danger jury “punitive” оf excessive in cases— verdicts under its recovery statute should be limited $20,000. being penal, judg- The statute it embodies highest punishment legislature ment of the that the imposed for figure. should be nonhomicidal death is this punishment nothing But as soon as has to do in (2) lawsuit —as does not suits under —and recovery compensation of as soon as is the victim then the punishment, policy rather than reasons on which limit are $20,000 might, based vanish. Massachusetts course, impose compensatory a limit on recoveries as of repealed for a time, It did so short but then well. this But it clear that the limit embodied statute. nothing suit; statute has to do with a of this maximum are imposition factors which led to the irrelevant when are not punitive. It would me as just therefore seem to artificial to take the $20,000 impose limit this of statute and it on Tort Claims Act recovery would be to as as it use a limit maximum figure taken from a imposing state criminal statute fine negligent homicide. The limitation the Massachu- penal penal setts statute was arrived at under concepts, artificially and on imposed recovery should not from have penal which considerations been eliminated congressional mandate. suggests
The if Appeals Court the Massachu “punitive” applicable, setts maximum were not the Gov put disadvantage ernment would be at a unique Massa chusetts, since death statutes some twelve other concededly limitations on which applicable pro would be to the under the United States visions Tort Claims Act. But limitations compensation statutes, these other States all relate to I not, course, suggest do that such a limitation aрply Massachusetts would also Government. symmetry operation lack resulting as having between Massachusetts and the other States recovery maxima, greater seems to me no than it death impose no between such States and those which Moreover, sym monetary limitation death recoveries. metry aspect in the first can be achieved at the offending general scheme of the Tort expense “the *9 questions Act refer of the Claims United of ‘the law of the provisions States to ” * complained the act оmission since occurred/ compensatory recognize Massachusetts does not actions. 385, *227 F. 2d 391.
CO00 of actual therefore, that think,
I philosophy with the is, case, in this full accord Claims Act. of the Tort Frankfurter, whom Reed, Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice join, and Mr. Brennan Clark, Justice Justice Mr. dissenting. general Act involving scope though of this
The case, constricted; holding geographically Congress, Claims under the Federal Tort actions applicable in Massachusetts. wrongful out of deaths arising Act Claims Court, of the Federal Tort finding words judgment Appeals, of the Court clear, reversed intеrpreting federal special responsibility which has unique circuit. law in matters to its that reasoning is the belief Underlying the Court’s language of the 1947 amendment is so clear it would of the amendment to limit require creative reconstruction maximum judgment the amount of the recoverable On than one under the Massachusetts Death Act. more Judge evidently enough, but occasion, frequently against restricting Learned Hand has warned mean- meaning “plain” a statute to the of its words. ing of way document than to any “There is no surer to misread Walling, . Guiseрpi . . .” v. 144 F. 2d literally read (concurring opinion). begins Of one course meaning, of a statute to ascertain its but one words plain does with them. The notion that the mean- not end meaning ing of words of statute defines the of T. H. Huxley’s gay statute reminds one observation theory that at “a its long times survives after brains are suppose particular knocked out.” One would this theory statutory had construction had its brains in Boston Sand Co. & Gravel v. knocked out States, U. S. 48.
The of this legislation plain words are as the as Court them, finds to if only the 1947 read amendment is in misleading repeal. isolation. An is а amendment not part An amendment it The legislation is amends. 1947 amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 must be read to purpose harmonize with the central original purpose original Act. The central recovery Act was to against allow States on the basis and to the extent recoveries for like torts by committed private tortfeasors the State which giving against act omission rise to the claim United States occurred. The 1947 amendment filled the gap, very gap, small was disclosed the scheme formulated 1946 Act. gaр the situation revealed two of the
forty-eight Alabama and States, Massachusetts. When Tort passed, Federal Claims Act was the Death Acts of both Alabama and provided for assess- ment- of the on a puni- defendant's tive basis. In maximum Alabama, however, there was no recovery, problem limitation on the and the of this case— statutory in excess of the maximum recovery whether employer recoverable can be had unique recovery against the United States —is therefore under the Massachusetts Death Act. United States filling gap, Congress only provide was concerned recovery against the United States for deaths wrongful provide in Massachusetts and Alabama and to for re- original Act, on a not a covery, did nothing basis. There indicate, to suppose, unreasonable meant a in Massachusetts to be unlimited in amount in the face statutory limitation at the same time that State’s lim- statutory recoveries the dozen other itations would be restricted. Such construction plaintiffs general takes Massachusetts out of the *11 by- Act. It does so Federal Tort Claims of the
scheme in the рosition plaintiffs a than better putting them imputes This statutory ceilings. with dozen other States 1946 inequity a to correct the to desire amendment. inequity an 1947 by creating is limitation contained Of the Massachusetts course punitive are related to a damages in a which statute purpose basis. The compensatory a rather than recovery against amendment was allow meas- state statute governing when United States exception on a basis. this sole damages such With ured a puts recovery basis, on harsher that the state statutе may be governing statute is the statute. It well the state restricting a if to enact statute that Massachusetts were a dif- recovery compensatory damages, impose would the ceil- ceiling. rejecting ferent But that no reason present comport good statute. It does not ing in the a impose that would suppose sense and reason State recovery higher ceiling compensatory on a based on damages. than it does it allows punitive when assumption supported by the fact This common-sense from during pеriod through that the brief when damages solely did on the Massachusetts statute measure compensatory basis, ceiling $15,000. was fixed at ceiling previous was the same that was This punitive on a statute which measured combined ceiling same that basis and the subsequent the immediately statute which measured solely deny basis. To effect to assumption this common-sense is to elevate the literal reading of the 1947 amendment above the central basis of recovery Tort Claims Federal the assimilation under federal law to under state lаw. Appeals Circuit, for the in an Court First opinion Judge Chief construed the 1947 Magruder, amendment in order to harmonize it with the central purpose of the Federal Claims Act. Tort Since elabora- my interpretation reasons for agreeing tion. with the Appeals of the Court of paraphrase could its my I from opinion, rest dissent the Court’s judgment I regard opinion on what as the substance : process “In foregoing of enactment of the amend- Act], reports ment the committee in both [the Senate, pointing House and after out under the scheme of the Federal Tort Claims Act each case is determined 'in the law accordance with *12 occurred,’ State the death following made the comment: “ 'This simply bill amends the Federal Tort Claims it shall grant people Act so that to the of two States already right granted people action to the other 46. “ bill, ‘This amendment, with the committee will not authorize punitive damages the infliction of as so it is Government, amended, favorably by a reported unanimous vote. “ will passage unjust ‘Its remove an discrimination а intended, complete never but which works denial remedy for wrongful Rep. homicide.’ H. R. No. on Cong., Committee 80th 1st Judiciary, Sess.; Rep. Sen. No. Committee the Judi- ciary, Cong., 80th 1st Sess. provisions
“Under the of the Federal Tort Claims they Act as appear Code, now in Title 28 of the is still true that has not a enacted new com- prehensive liability. of federal code tort It is still true that in general Act for an application calls of the wrongful law state where the act 142 is still Also, generalization occurred.
omission liable to be held that the United Stаtes is the law the same extent manner and to in tort ‘in the same like private individual under circumstances.’ by the second covered exceptional situation is, the 1947 C. 2674 U. S. paragraph [that states, to two of applies amendment] respec- under their of the states upon basis. Acts rests tive Death Death local states, of these about dozen amount of maximum limit on the Act contains some are plaintiffs In these as the recovery. states, ... not be concede, the United States could bound to per- statutory more than the maximum liable for em- mitted law suits state para- of the first ployers. Such is clear mandate 2674. graph of 28 S. C. § U. suggested above,
“As the 1947 amendment partial Tort Claims did make break original pattern that, of the Act wherever applicable, possible the amendment was it became *13 (1) might that the United States be held liable for greater sum of on a damages, assessed than Death basis, might be assessed under the local private employer in which the cases wrongdoer of guilty was deemed to have been the degree (2) minimum of аnd culpability, might for no at be liable substantial plaintiff all, prove any pecuniary failed to . . injury though to the next of kin . under local private employer subject Act a might Death be large damages assessed on a Thus punitive basis. in either of these situations the United States would not be liable To the same extent’ as a em- ployer like circumstances, under which is the gener- ally applicable standard in the first paragraph § U. S. C. 2674.
“But we think it is unnecessary to construe the congressional amendment, was intended which to remove what deemed to be a discrimination very in a situation, narrow so as effectuate a far greater discrimination and If incongruity. the con- tention of plaintiffs accepted, were then Mas- alone, sachusetts all the states whose respective Death contain a Acts maximum limit of recovery, may the United States be held liable in an amount of maximum limit excess permitted private employer. [Footnote omitted.] plaintiffs “The would have us read literally, isolation, language the second paragraph 28 U. C. that, S. in lieu оf punitive damages, 'the United States shall be liable actual or com- pensatory in- damages, pecuniary measured juries resulting respec- from such death to persons tively, brought.’ whose benefit the action was It argued that since damages, so have computed, been found to be has $60,000, and since the imposed recovery, no maximum limit of then neces- sarily, by very Congress, command of the judgment against the here must United States the sum of $60,000.
“The trouble the foregoing argument is that the Federal amended, Tort Claims must be an organic read as In 1947, whole. when the Con- gress enacted the amendment, it demonstrated no portion objection to that Death recovery. Act which contained maximum limit purely *14 That was a matter of local legislative policy, for more employer if could not be held private and gov- waiving the $20,000, Congress, then the than had no immunity States, of the United ernmental impose liability upon the United States reason to to a applicable excess of the maximum limit Congress not want the did employer. What States on assessed the United have language full effect to the give basis. We punitive amendment if assess congressional we compensatory basis the on a States United injuries resulting to by pecuniary measured if amount Having that, next of kin. done way it is in no computed $20,000, so excess of larger $20,000, sum to inconsistent to cut down the terms the maximum amount recoverable under $20,000 All of the of the Massachusetts Death Act. a case would be to be recovered such it one of would be cent —not the con- thus there would be achieved damages —and infliction of gressional objective preventing States. punitive damages against the United pro- words, clearly other where has except otherwise, general scheme of the Tort vided is the questions Claims to refer 'the law of the provisions of occurred.’ Thus complained the act omission who is entitled we must look to the local law to see sue, benefit; and for whose we must look to contributory negligence local law whether decedent, during lifetime, or a release him his death; also wrongful bars action for and we must maxi- the local as to the apply provision law par- recovery, mum amount of none of these any there inconsistent in the provision ticulars is 227 F. 2d 388-391. federal Act.”