Molzof v. United States - 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711 (1992)

Rule:

28 U.S.C.S. § 2674 prohibits awards of "punitive damages," not "damages awards that may have a punitive effect." "Punitive damages" is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning; "punitive damages have long been a part of traditional state tort law." Although the precise nature and use of punitive damages may have evolved over time, and the size and frequency of such awards may have increased, the Court's decisions make clear that the concept of "punitive damages" has a long pedigree in the law. It is a well-established principle of the common law, that in actions of trespass and all actions on the case for torts, a jury may inflict what are called exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages upon a defendant, having in view the enormity of his offence rather than the measure of compensation to the plaintiff.

Facts:

After a patient at a Veterans' Administration hospital in Wisconsin suffered irreversible brain damage and was left permanently comatose as a result of negligence by hospital employees, the patient's guardian ad litem, filed an action on the patient's behalf in a Federal District Court, which action sought to recover damages from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 USCS 2671-2680). The United States admitted liability, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of damages. The district court ordered the hospital to continue providing care and awarded damages for supplemental care not provided by the hospital. The district court, however, refused to award damages for medical care that would duplicate the free medical services provided by the hospital and for loss of enjoyment of life. The patient died after the District Court's final judgment was entered, and his widow, Petitioner Shirley Molzof, was substituted as plaintiff in her capacity as personal representative of his estate. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court, noting that the FTCA barred awards of punitive damages, and defining punitive damages as any damages in excess of those necessary to compensate victims or their survivors for the pecuniary loss suffered by reason of the tort. According to the appellate court, since the government had provided free medical care to the patient and the petitioner appeared satisfied with that care, any additional award for future medical expenses would be punitive in effect and therefore was barred under 2674, and even assuming that a comatose patient can recover damages for loss of enjoyment of life under Wisconsin law, such damages could not redress the patient's loss and therefore were also barred as punitive. 

Issue:

Would an award for loss of enjoyment of life and for future medical expenses be considered as punitive damages unauthorized under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act), 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 2671-2680? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that 2674 barred the recovery of only what were legally considered "punitive damages" under traditional common-law principles--that is, damages which were intended to act as punishment for intentional or egregious conduct—and did not limit the United States' liability to compensatory damages for actual pecuniary losses. The Court held that the damages for loss of enjoyment of life and for future medical expenses sought by the patient's estate were not punitive damages under the common law or under 2674, because their recovery did not depend on any proof that the defendant had engaged in intentional or egregious misconduct, and their purpose was not to punish.