Criminal Liability of the Government William Fullam Essay #2

7/31/2019 Criminal Liability of the Government William Fullam Essay #2

1/5

William Fullam

Criminal LawProfessor Poulsen

Nov. 12, 2010

Criminal Liability Of The Government

In early English common law, there is sovereign immunity. It declared that his people could not

sue the King. The reason being that, since the King made the laws, he could not be held

accountable in the courts he ruled over.

The Eleventh Amendment states, The Judicial power of the United States shall not be

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the

United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Allowing that States are protected from suit for money damages or property reimbursement, in

(1908) the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Courts could injunction State Officials from

violating federal law.

In (1946) a B-52 bomber flew through a heavy bank of fog into the Empire State Building. In

so killing many people. Months later the government offered money to the families of the

victims, some took the money, others sued. Out of that suit came the Federal Tort Claims Act

(FTCA). This suit is the first that Congress passed that allowed people to sue the Government.

The FTCA grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Courts to dispose of claims by

individuals and corporations against the United States where the lawsuits seek compensation,

"for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful

act or omission of any employee of the United States where that employee acted in performance


2/5

of his or her governmental duties ifthe same action resulting in injury would impose liability ona private individual under state law in similar circumstances. The FTCA does not address the

liability of Federal Employees to the injured party. In (1988) through the Federal Employees

Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, also known as the Westfall Act by the name of the

case that was overruled. The ruling states, When a federal employee is sued to collect money

damages for an action performed within the scope of his or her employment, the United States is

substituted as the defendant and the employee is excused from the case without the potential for

any personal liability. This substitution is not available, however, if the employee's action

violated the United States Constitution in circumstances where the courts allow a damage

remedy against the employee for that violation.It is based upon a long-standing public policy

that public officers and employees should not be deterred in the performance of official duties by

fear they will be personally liable for consequences that may result from the performance of

those duties. Two categories of immunity have evolved from the court decisions: (1) absolute

immunity and (2) qualified immunity. Absolute immunity has limited application. It is available

only to members of legislative bodies, judges, and prosecutors when they are engaged in the

performance of acts that are legislative, judicial, or prosecutorial in nature. In the performance of

other official duties these officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The defense of qualified

immunity is available to public officers and employees in two types of suits: (1) those for

damages based on an allegation that the acts of the officer or employee have deprived the

plaintiff of rights guaranteed by federal statute or the United States Constitution, commonly

referred to as civil rights suits, and (2) those for damages alleged to have resulted from the

negligent or wrongful performance of official duties without an allegation of deprivation of civil

rights Federal and State Courts may hear civil rights suits, however, it is by their decision


3/5

whether the public officer or employee is entitled to immunity based on the legal principles of

the federal court. It is the courts that must decide whether the public officer or employee at the

time the action was taken, violated clearly established law. If at that time the law was clearly

established that person knew or should have known that what they were doing was unlawful, The

officer or employees state of mind does not make that determination it is by asking whether the

unlawfulness of the action would be obvious to another public officer or employee under the

same circumstances.

In November, 2009, Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. of the U.S. District Court, issued a

landmark ruling finding the Army Corps of Engineers' negligent failure to maintain and operate

the Mississippi River properly was a substantial cause for the fatal breaching of the Levee

during hurricane Katrina. If thejudges ruling is upheld on appeal, thousands of individuals and

entities whose property was damaged or destroyed, or who suffered personal injury, in St.

Bernard Polder and the Lower 9th Ward, could be eligible for compensation from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers.

In July, 2003. 336 F.3d 294. United States of America v. St. Louise University, SLU was

ordered to pay restitution for damages due to a child being paralyzed from a polio vaccination.

SLU argued that Danny Callahan's polio vaccine came from one of the seeds that the district

court, in Sabins case (Sabins Oral Prods. Liab. Litg., 984 F.2d 124 (4th Cir.1993)), had

concluded the government negligently approved in violation of its own regulatory standards.

Since the court had concluded that the government's failings proximately caused the injuries of

the Sabins cases plaintiffs, SLU suggested that those same regulatory violations must also be


4/5

held to have proximately caused Danny's injuries.The district court agreed with SLU. The court

granted partial summary judgment to SLU, concluding that the government was liable in

contribution to SLU, but reserving for later the determination of the extent of the government's

liability to SLU.

How is criminal liability extending to our Government and its employees? First our

Government needs to be protected from attack from others that do not like what our justice

system stands for and so do we as citizens. We have a Government that employs thousands of

people. All of which are trained to do some sort of service to our country. We cannot expect

them not to make mistakes and when they do, the employee or the Government must answer to

the courts. I see that granting immunity for certain situations is needed so that workers will not

be nervous and second guess themselves as to what their job entails and without fear of

prosecution but we all have rights and have to face repercussions for making wrong decisions.

The definition of liability is; A legal duty or obligation. The Constitution of the United States

gives each American citizen inalienable rights. It is our Governments legal duty and obligation to

see that those rights are protected and enforced. It is our duty and obligation as citizens, of these

United States, that we honor and uphold the laws that are giving us also.

We are afforded the right to have suit with our Government or its employees. the Government

also needs to make sure that its laws are protected to. We are only human and eventually we are

going to make mistakes. As long as we are learning from them and dont continue making

them over and over we will continue to grow and get stronger.


5/5

336 F.3d 294 United States of America v. St. Louis University

Federal Tort Claims Act: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Federal Tort Claims Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal Liability of Public Officers and Employees | UT Watch on the Web

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government held liable in warrantless wiretapping case - CNN

Hurricane Katrina Flooding - Levee Failure Lawsuit
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/336/336.F3d.294.02-1351.htmlhttp://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/336/336.F3d.294.02-1351.htmlhttp://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-acthttp://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Acthttp://www.utwatch.org/corporations/freeportfiles/liability.htmlhttp://www.utwatch.org/corporations/freeportfiles/liability.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/justice/illegal.wiretapping_1_al-haramain-case-illegal-wiretapping-state-secrets?_s=PM:CRIMEhttp://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/justice/illegal.wiretapping_1_al-haramain-case-illegal-wiretapping-state-secrets?_s=PM:CRIMEhttp://www.leveeclaims.com/http://www.leveeclaims.com/http://www.leveeclaims.com/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/justice/illegal.wiretapping_1_al-haramain-case-illegal-wiretapping-state-secrets?_s=PM:CRIMEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://www.utwatch.org/corporations/freeportfiles/liability.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Acthttp://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-acthttp://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/336/336.F3d.294.02-1351.html

Documents

Criminal Liability of the Government William Fullam Essay #2