Definitions
Source
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 982; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 124, 63 Stat. 106; Pub. L. 89–506, § 8,Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
1948 Act
1949 Act
Editorial Notes
Amendments
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2000 Amendment
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Effective Date of 1981 Amendment
Effective Date of 1966 Amendment
Short Title
Severability
Law Enforcement Officer Acting Within Scope of Office or Employment
Definitions.—
In this section—
the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
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.
Rule of Construction.—
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act [
protect an individual in the presence of the officer from a crime of violence;
provide immediate assistance to an individual who has suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or
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
Findings.—
The Congress finds and declares the following:
For more than 40 years the Federal Tort Claims Act [see Short Title note above] has been the legal mechanism for compensating persons injured by negligent or wrongful acts of Federal employees committed within the scope of their employment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”