Miele v. United States
800 F.2d 50 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intentional tort exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), bars claims against the government that arise from an employee's assault and battery, regardless of whether the claim is framed as negligence and irrespective of the employee's mental state or insanity at the time of the act.
Facts:
- Basilio Bouza was a soldier in the United States Army who had been absent without leave (AWOL) since September 10, 1973.
- Prior to the primary incident, Bouza had exhibited hostility towards the Miele family, including throwing a brick through their window and a 'Molotov cocktail' into their backyard.
- On October 5, 1973, Bouza threw sulphuric acid into the face of four-year-old Joshua Miele.
- As a result of the attack, Joshua Miele was permanently blinded and his face was disfigured.
- In a subsequent criminal proceeding in New York state court, Bouza was acquitted by reason of insanity, with the court finding he suffered from a 'defect of reason' at the time of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Joshua Miele and his parents (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The district court granted the United States' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intentional tort exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)) bar a claim against the United States for an assault and battery committed by an insane government employee, even when the claim is framed as negligent supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, Circuit Judge
Yes, the intentional tort exception of the FTCA bars a claim against the United States under these circumstances. First, a plaintiff cannot circumvent the FTCA's bar on claims arising from assault and battery by framing the complaint as one for negligent supervision. Following the Supreme Court's reasoning in United States v. Shearer, the court must look to the underlying factual situation—a deliberate attack by a government employee—rather than the plaintiff's chosen legal theory. Second, the employee's insanity does not render the intentional tort exception inapplicable. Congress intended to exempt the government from liability for this type of factual situation, and the government's fault does not change based on the sanity of the employee. Furthermore, under New York common law, an insane person can be held civilly liable for an assault and battery, meaning the act remains an intentional tort for the purposes of the FTCA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the strength of the FTCA's intentional tort exception, preventing plaintiffs from pleading around it by styling their claims as negligence. It clarifies that courts will look at the substance of the claim—the underlying tortious act—rather than the form of the complaint. Most importantly, it establishes that the mental incapacity of the government employee is not a basis for waiving sovereign immunity, closing a potential loophole and ensuring that the government's liability is not dependent on the complex and often difficult-to-prove issue of an employee's sanity. The ruling solidifies a broad interpretation of § 2680(h) that protects the government from liability for a wide range of employee misconduct.
