Law in Plain English: United States v. Wong

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: United States v. Wong

Argument: Dec 10 2014 (Aud.)

Background: Hong Kong citizen Kwai Fun Wong, a leader of the Wu Wei Tien Tao religious group, was detained and deported for unlawful entry into the United States. On May 18, 2001, Wong filed a negligence claim with the (then) Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),  alleging that she had been mistreated by that agency while she was detained. After the INS denied her claim on December 3, 2001, Wong filed a claim on August 13, 2002, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the same conduct. The FTCA has a statute of limitations that “[a] tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred...unless action is begun within six months after the...final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.” The district court dismissed Wong's FTCA claim because it was not filed within six months. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling. Wong's claim was filed late "due solely to the delay inherent in the Magistrate Judge system," and not through any fault of Wong's. As a result, Wong's claim could proceed.

Issue: The question before the Court is whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.

Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 2401(b)’s time limits are subject to equitable tolling. Section 2401(b)’s time limits are subject to equitable tolling because the Court previously adopted a “rebuttable presumption” that such time bars maybe equitably tolled. As a result, the Court concluded, Congress thus must do something special to tag a statute of limitations as jurisdictional and so prohibit a court from tolling it. Congress did no such thing in enacting §2401(b).

Controversial Court Decisions: O'Brien v. Muskin Corp.

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., 94 N.J. 169 (1983).

Facts: O'Brien trespassed at the home of the Henrys and dove into their above ground pool (either from the platform by the pool or from the roof of the adjacent eight-foot high garage) made by Muskin Corp. As O'Brien’s hands hit the vinyl lined pool bottom, they slid apart and he sustained injuries when his head hit the bottom. The water in the pool was filled to a depth of three and one-half feet and a warning decal saying "Do Not Dive" appeared beneath the manufacturer’s logo in letters approximately one-half inch high. O'Brien sued the manufacturer of the pool on the grounds that it was liable for having failed to warn him of the risks of diving into the pool, and that the pool was defectively designed because its bottom had been lined with vinyl.

Trial Court: The trial court determined that O'Brien had failed to prove a design defect in the pool. The jury determined that the pool was defective, but that O'Brien was a trespasser at the time of the accident, thus exculpating the Henrys. Finally, the jury found that O'Brien was guilty of contributory negligence (85% to O'Brien and 15% to Muskin). Thus, under New Jersey's comparative negligence statute, O'Brien was barred from recovery.

Appellate Court: After the Appellate Division ordered a new trial, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that held that even though O'Brien could not show that the vinyl lined pool bottom could be designed more safely, he could still prevail if he could convince a jury that the "risk posed by the pool outweighed its utility."  The Court used a multi-factor risk-utility analysis test, which included examining "[t]he feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance."As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order of a new trial. 

Why It's Controversial: Muskin Corp. was held strictly liable for O'Brien's injuries even though he trespassed onto the Henry's property and dove into a shallow pool despite the posted warning.

Controversial Court Decisions: Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 34 Cal.3d 49 (1983).

Facts: Bigbee was was injured when an allgedly intoxicated driver lost control of her car, veered off the street into a parking lot, and crashed into a telephone booth in which the man was standing. The phone booth was about 15 feet from the road, and the door was allegedly "sticky."  Bigbee sued the driver and the companies that served her alcohol. In addition (and this is what this case is about), he also sued the companies responsible for the design, location, installation, and maintenance of the telephone booth. 

Appellate Court: The California Supreme Court ruled that the risk someone might veer off the road and crash into the telephone booth was not unforeseeable as a matter of law. The Court also determined that it was of no consequence that the harm to the plaintiff came about through the negligent or reckless acts of an allegedly intoxicated driver. The Court concluded that "there are no policy considerations which weigh against imposition of liability" against the defendants, and referred specifically to "the probable availability of insurance tor these types of accidents." After the case was remanded, the defendants settled with Bigbee for an undisclosed amount.

Why It's Controversial: The Court's decision that the companies responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of the telephone booth could be held liable endorsed a wide-ranging definition of forseeability: A jury need not find that the defendants could forsee an intoxicated driver crashing into a phone booth located on that particular street, but rather whether a jury could foresee any driver crashing into a man standing in any phone booth similarly situated (the dissent notes that public telephones have long been maintained adjacent to roads for the convenience of the public, despite obvious but remote risks). This broad definition of forseeability is a license for a considerable expansion of liability. For more background and a different perspective on the Bigbee case, see here.

Controversial Court Decisions: Walt Disney World v. Wood

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe controversial, notorious, infamous, and outrageous court decisions. For similar posts, click here.

Case: Walt Disney World v. Wood, 515 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1987).

Facts: Aloysia Wood was injured in November 1971 at the grand prix attraction at Walt Disney World (Disney), when her fiance (and later husband) Daniel Wood, rammed from the rear the vehicle which she was driving. Aloysia Wood filed suit against Disney, and Disney sought contribution from Daniel Wood. Disney's contribution claim alleged that Daniel, who was not a party in the original suit, was at least partially liable for the injuries to Aloysia.

Trial Court: The jury returned a verdict finding Aloysia Wood 14% at fault, Daniel Wood 85% at fault, and Disney 1% at fault (for more information about apportioning fault via comparative negligence, see here). The jury assessed Wood's damages at $75,000. Because Daniel Wood was judgment proof (basically, financially insolvent), and because of the concept of joint and several liability, the court entered judgment against Disney for 86% of the damages.

Appellate Courts: The Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

Why It's Controversial: Despite a finding from the jury that the Woods were a combined  99% at fault (Aloysia 14% and Daniel 85%), Aloysia Wood received 86% of the damages: Disney's liability (1%), and Daniel's liability (85%, also paid by Disney). Because Disney was partially responsible (if only 1%), joint and several liability provided that Aloysia Wood could recover the entire amount of damages ($75,000), minus her liability (14%, or $10,500), from Disney. The Woods enriched themselves on their own negligence. Approximately 15 states follow the rule that defendants are joint and severally liable, even under a comparative negligence regime.

Judge Posner on corporations

Judge Posner

"A corporation is a ganglion of relations with people, most of whom, in the case of a railroad anyway, are not rich--shippers, railroad workers, passengers, employees of suppliers, shippers' customers, and families of the foregoing. Even if all the corporation's shareholders are rich, it is by no means certain that the predominant part of any increase in the corporation's costs that is due to more extensive tort liability will come to rest on them rather than on the persons with whom the corporation is economically entwined. Then too large corporation will on average be a defendant in more suits than will a small one; the total burden on it may be no less..."

Richard A. Posner, Cardozo: A Study in Reputation 47-48 (1990).

Can insanity be used as a defense to negligence? What about if Batman is involved?

"The psychiatrist testified Mrs. Veith told him she was driving on a road when she believed that God was taking ahold of the steering wheel and was directing her car. She saw the truck coming and stepped on the gas in order to become air-borne because she knew she could fly because Batman does it. To her surprise she was not air-borne before striking the truck but after the impact she was flying." Breunig v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 45 Wis. 2d 536, 539 (1970).

One of these books is not like the other

Bar Prep: Torts #2

This is one in a series of posts designed to give you some insight into the questions that one might see on the bar exam, and how one might go about answering them. For similar posts, click here.

QUESTION: Lara is walking to her office one morning, when a public school bus rapidly careens up onto the sidewalk where she is walking and heads straight for her. Yurii, the bus driver, is so preoccupied with tuning his new satellite radio to his favorite disc jockey that he does not realize that the bus has gone off the road. Lara tries her best to get out of the way in time and at the last minute jumps into the yard of Tonya, her neighbor. Once she lands on the ground, Lara realizes that she is lying in a patch of Tonya's prize-winning carnations, and has essentially killed the entire carnation patch. Tonya sues Lara for damages to her carnations. How will the court find?

A. Lara is liable as she had no privilege to enter Tonya's yard.

B. Lara's liability rests in the determination of whether Lara acted with due care.

C. Lara is liable for the damaged carnations.

D. Lara was privileged to enter, no liability attaches to her.

Bar Prep: Torts #1

This is one in a series of posts designed to give you some insight into the questions that one might see on the bar exam, and how one might go about answering them. For similar posts, click here.

QUESTION: StarWalkers is under contract with the government to build a missile defense system. Suppose that StarWalkers tests their prototype on a deserted stretch of desert in Nevada. They fire up the satellite rocket system and huge clouds of smoke and particles are generated as the thing struggles to take off. These deposits are broadcast all over the O.B.Juan Ranch located several acres west of StarWalkers testing property. Additionally, the satellite rocket vibrates at a frequency that results in the collapse of Juan's exquisite wine cellar carved into the sandstone under his house. Two million dollars in vintage wine is destroyed. Assume that Juan files for trespass against StarWalkers. Which answer would be most helpful to StarWalkers in avoiding liability?

A. Juan bought the ranch knowing that StarWalkers often used their property for testing such as this.

B. Neither StarWalkers, nor its employees, ever set foot on Juan's property.

C. StarWalkers had no reason to believe that the testing would result in these problems.

D. StarWalkers' development of a rocket defense to destroy incoming aliens is a matter of national security and they are protected as privileged.