Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
Federal Tort Claims Act
Federal Tort Claims
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (P.L. 79-601, 60 Stat. 842) was enacted by U.S. Congress in August 1946, according to which any individual can sue the federal government for personal damages, like loss of money and property, physical injury or any other such situation caused by federal organization and its employees, while working within the limits of employment. The person can file claims against the government and the expenditure must be repaid to him if falls under the liabilities of FTCA. The FTCA is authorized for the recovery of any financial damage caused by some misunderstanding or mistreatment of the rules and regulations set by federal government, since the act falls under negligence and intolerable behavior which can highly cost the other person. According to this act, "The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages" (Cohen and Burrows 2007). This statement clearly indicates what can the state government do in such tort claims cases and what does not fall under its provisions. Hence according to FTCA, the government will not provide compensation in those tort claims which accounts under the discipline and law and comes as a penalty to the person according to a particular situation.
Prior to the enactment of FTCA, there were many such claims in which individuals, who were physically injured or financially broken by any individual or corporation, were provided compensation according to the law. But there was no such law against the federal government and its employees by which it becomes liable of the negligence and mis-use of authority given by the government. Cases like negligence or mal-treatment by health care professionals of federal government, or accidents caused by the drivers of the state's public transport system were never suited, as federal government did not consider itself liable to be claimed for such incidents. Such happenings were treated as personal faults and unprofessional attitudes and the victim would never get justice. The federal government was considered immune to all such claims and suits by individuals amongst the society. This is called the doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity," by which "that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Hence, the government is supreme enough not to be suited for compensation cases, unless with the consent of Congress. There were some many money claims cases reported by the citizens of U.S., if the federal government was responsible, in any case, for their financial damages. There were some tort claims also, but such were never entertained due to lack of a proper law and legislation about such claims against the government (Cecchine, 2004).
It was actually the "Empire state building crash" of July 1945, in which an army bomber crashed into the building due to fog and lack of visibility, causing deaths and injuries to many people inside the building. At that time, it was obvious that no one can sue the government for this accident and the loss of lives as there was no legislation regarding such accidents, but the government itself offered some amount to the victims as compensation. Some of the victims accepted the amount, while some other filed a suit against the government. About a year later, FTCA was enacted legally and the victims of this crash became the first ones to sue federal government under this legislation. Since then, any U.S. citizen can claim for his torts if falls under the liabilities of FTCA, and the authority is bound to take such actions and to retrieve money or other asset if treated wrongly by mishandling of authority provided. Hence the FTCA waives off the sovereign immunity and allowed the citizens to take their respective compensations from the government (Niles 2002).
Like other legislations, FTCA has some provisions, limitations and exceptions too. The act falls under the title of sensitive acts, as there can be as many reports and claims according to different circumstances, and the law should be enacted such that it must incorporate with all kinds…[continue]
"Federal Tort Claims Act Federal Tort Claims" (2012, July 24) Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/federal-tort-claims-act-81256
"Federal Tort Claims Act Federal Tort Claims" 24 July 2012. Web.22 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/federal-tort-claims-act-81256>
"Federal Tort Claims Act Federal Tort Claims", 24 July 2012, Accessed.22 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/federal-tort-claims-act-81256
Federal Tort Claims Act Traditionally, the federal government was immune from lawsuits by its citizens under a doctrine known as sovereign immunity. Theoretically, this immunity was justified because people would necessarily have disagreements with the government and resorting to the court system to help resolve those disputes could have resulted in a tremendous waste of time and energy. However, the situation left people with no solution when they were harmed by
Tort Law and Trident Diving Company An item that has been recently recalled by the CPSC is the line of High-Pressure Scuba Diving Air Hoses manufactured by Trident Diving Equipment. In this instance, the item has the propensity to cause drowning in those who use it even when properly installed. Trident has received one report of the hose leaking. No injuries have been reported due to the use of this product,
In this case Anna's waiter would claim that he was acting in self-defense when he pulled the burning apron off of himself and discarded it. Elderly Lady v. Italian Restaurant Negligence Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard recognized by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. The test is not whether the defendant intended to exercise due care, nor whether the defendant did the best he
Some legislators believe that such suits encourage companies to ensure that there products are safe. Other law makers, however, believe that such suits are excessive and can prevent companies from being able to recover. Another form of tort reform that as been suggested is known as "loser pays. This type of legislation is based on the English Rule (Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform). This particular proposal would force
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
Fault: An Alternative to the Current Tort-Based System in England and Wales The United Kingdom statistics regarding claims THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM OBSTACLES TO DUE PROCESS THE CASE FOR REFORM THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION LORD WOOLF'S REFORMS MORE COST CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES PAUL'S PULLOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TORT REFORM IN AMERICA FLEEING PHYSICIANS STATISTICS FOR ERROR, INJURY AND DEATH THE CALL FOR REFORM IN 2003: A FAMILIAR REFRAIN THE UNITED STATES SITUATION, IN SUMMARY NEW ZEALAND CASE STUDIES THE SWEDISH SCHEME COMPARISON: WHICH SYSTEM
In a somewhat clandestinely released report prepared for the Department of Energy, Advanced Resources International measures the economic effects of the regulations recommended by environmental groups." (Loris, 1) This type of willful hostility toward the environmental movement, ironically, provides as explicit a case for the use of hard-and-fast regulatory standards for the administration of industry practices as any form of advocacy, demonstrating the extent to which these entities will