Notes on 28 U.S.C. § 2671 : US Code - Notes

Search Notes on 28 U.S.C. § 2671 : US Code - Notes

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 982; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, Sec.
124, 63 Stat. 106; Pub. L. 89-506, Sec. 8, July 18, 1966, 80 Stat.
307; Pub. L. 97-124, Sec. 1, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1666; Pub. L.
100-694, Sec. 3, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4564; Pub. L. 106-398,
Sec. 1 [[div. A], title VI, Sec. 665(b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat.
1654, 1654A-169; Pub. L. 106-518, title IV, Sec. 401, Nov. 13,
2000, 114 Stat. 2421.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
1948 ACT
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 941 (Aug. 2, 1946, ch.
753, Sec. 402, 60 Stat. 842).
Changes were made in phraseology.
1949 ACT
This section corrects a typographical error in section 2671 of
title 28, U.S.C.
AMENDMENTS
2000 - Pub. L. 106-518, in par. defining "Employee of the
government", inserted "(1)" after "includes" and added cl. (2).
Pub. L. 106-398 inserted "115," after "members of the National
Guard while engaged in training or duty under section" in par.
defining "Employee of the government".
1988 - Pub. L. 100-694 inserted "the judicial and legislative
branches," after "departments," in first par.
1981 - Pub. L. 97-124 inserted "members of the National Guard
while engaged in training or duty under section 316, 502, 503, 504,
or 505 of title 32," in definition of "Employee of the government"
and "or a member of the National Guard as defined in section 101(3)
of title 32" in definition of "Acting within the scope of his
office or employment".
1966 - Pub. L. 89-506 expanded definition of "Federal agency" to
include military departments.
1949 - Act May 24, 1949, corrected spelling of "office".
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2000 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 106-398, Sec. 1 [[div. A], title VI, Sec. 665(c)(2)],
Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-169, provided that: "The
amendment made by subsection (b) [amending this section] shall
apply with respect to acts and omissions occurring before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 30, 2000]."
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 100-694 effective Nov. 18, 1988, and
applicable to all claims, civil actions, and proceedings pending
on, or filed on or after, Nov. 18, 1988, see section 8 of Pub. L.
100-694, set out as a note under section 2679 of this title.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1981 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 97-124 applicable only with respect to
claims arising on or after Dec. 29, 1981, see section 4 of Pub. L.
97-124, set out as a note under section 1089 of Title 10, Armed
Forces.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1966 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 89-506 applicable to claims accruing six
months or more after July 18, 1966, see section 10 of Pub. L. 89-
506, set out as a note under section 2672 of this title.
SEVERABILITY
Section 7 of Pub. L. 100-694 provided that: "If any provision of
this Act [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note under section 1 of
this title] or the amendments made by this Act or the application
of the provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of this Act and such amendments and the application of
the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be
affected by that invalidation."
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ACTING WITHIN SCOPE OF OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT
Pub. L. 105-277, div. A, Sec. 101(h) [title VI, Sec. 627], Oct.
21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-480, 2681-519, as amended by Pub. L. 106-
58, title VI, Sec. 623, Sept. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 471, provided
that:
"(a) Definitions. - In this section -
"(1) the term 'crime of violence' has the meaning given that
term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
"(2) the term 'law enforcement officer' means any employee
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 8401(17) of
title 5, United States Code; and any special agent in the
Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State.
"(b) Rule of Construction. - Effective on the date of the
enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998] and thereafter, and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of chapter
171 of title 28, United States Code, or any other provision of law
relating to tort liability, a law enforcement officer shall be
construed to be acting within the scope of his or her office or
employment, if the officer takes reasonable action, including the
use of force, to -
"(1) protect an individual in the presence of the officer from
a crime of violence;
"(2) provide immediate assistance to an individual who has
suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or
"(3) prevent the escape of any individual who the officer
reasonably believes to have committed in the presence of the
officer a crime of violence."
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
Section 2 of Pub. L. 100-694 provided that:
"(a) Findings. - The Congress finds and declares the following:
"(1) For more than 40 years the Federal Tort Claims Act [28
U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq.] has been the legal mechanism for
compensating persons injured by negligent or wrongful acts of
Federal employees committed within the scope of their employment.
"(2) The United States, through the Federal Tort Claims Act, is
responsible to injured persons for the common law torts of its
employees in the same manner in which the common law historically
has recognized the responsibility of an employer for torts
committed by its employees within the scope of their employment.
"(3) Because Federal employees for many years have been
protected from personal common law tort liability by a broad
based immunity, the Federal Tort Claims Act has served as the
sole means for compensating persons injured by the tortious
conduct of Federal employees.
"(4) Recent judicial decisions, and particularly the decision
of the United States Supreme Court in Westfall v. Erwin, have
seriously eroded the common law tort immunity previously
available to Federal employees.
"(5) This erosion of immunity of Federal employees from common
law tort liability has created an immediate crisis involving the
prospect of personal liability and the threat of protracted
personal tort litigation for the entire Federal workforce.
"(6) The prospect of such liability will seriously undermine
the morale and well being of Federal employees, impede the
ability of agencies to carry out their missions, and diminish the
vitality of the Federal Tort Claims Act as the proper remedy for
Federal employee torts.
"(7) In its opinion in Westfall v. Erwin, the Supreme Court
indicated that the Congress is in the best position to determine
the extent to which Federal employees should be personally liable
for common law torts, and that legislative consideration of this
matter would be useful.
"(b) Purpose. - It is the purpose of this Act [see Short Title of
1988 Amendment note under section 1 of this title] to protect
Federal employees from personal liability for common law torts
committed within the scope of their employment, while providing
persons injured by the common law torts of Federal employees with
an appropriate remedy against the United States."