Duenges v. United States

S.D. New York

Duenges v. United States

114 F. Supp. 751, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4067

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedSeptember 22, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 114 F. Supp. 751 (Duenges v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duenges v. United States, 114 F. Supp. 751, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4067 (S.D.N.Y. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

The Government moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., under which suit has been brought, specifically excludes the action. The plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for desertion from the Army, when in fact he had been honorably discharged, as found by the military tribunal which ultimately exonerated him. The complaint alleges that the Government negligently maintained its records resulting in injuries to the plaintiff in the loss of his freedom,, humiliation, fear, embarrassment and mental anguish, and loss of earnings.

Assuming that the Government had a legal duty to the plaintiff to keep his records properly, the breach of such a duty by the Government’s negligence could' become an actionable wrong only upon the event of resulting injury. The injuries-alleged derive from a false arrest and imprisonment. In an action of negligence “ ‘damage is of the very gist and essence of the plaintiff’s cause.’ ” Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 270 N.Y. 287, 300, 200 N.E. 824, 827, 104 A.L.R. 450. Here, false arrest and imprisonment are of the very gist and essence o-f the plaintiff’s cause. Section 2680(h) of 28 U.S.C. specifically excludes from the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act claims “arising out of * * * false imprisonment [and] false arrest * * This suit arises out of false imprisonment and false arrest within the meaning of that section, and consequently, it does not come within-the scope of the Act.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

The Government moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., under which suit has been brought, specifically excludes the action. The plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for desertion from the Army, when in fact he had been honorably discharged, as found by the military tribunal which ultimately exonerated him. The complaint alleges that the Government negligently maintained its records resulting in injuries to the plaintiff in the loss of his freedom,, humiliation, fear, embarrassment and mental anguish, and loss of earnings.

Assuming that the Government had a legal duty to the plaintiff to keep his records properly, the breach of such a duty by the Government’s negligence could' become an actionable wrong only upon the event of resulting injury. The injuries-alleged derive from a false arrest and imprisonment. In an action of negligence “ ‘damage is of the very gist and essence of the plaintiff’s cause.’ ” Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Co., 270 N.Y. 287, 300, 200 N.E. 824, 827, 104 A.L.R. 450. Here, false arrest and imprisonment are of the very gist and essence o-f the plaintiff’s cause. Section 2680(h) of 28 U.S.C. specifically excludes from the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act claims “arising out of * * * false imprisonment [and] false arrest * * This suit arises out of false imprisonment and false arrest within the meaning of that section, and consequently, it does not come within-the scope of the Act.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. Supp. 751, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duenges-v-united-states-nysd-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack