Posted on 10/14/2011 1:27:43 PM PDT by Immerito
DETROIT – A federal judge in Detroit has dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wreck of a $750,000 Ferrari driven by an FBI agent.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is wrong. The government should be a responsible custodian of investigated property, not an abuser or enjoyer of it.
If this is true then I agree. These persons were acting outside their powers as agents of the Federal Government and they should be prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto by the state government.
They should also be required by the state courts to make financial restitution.
I hope the insurance company appeals this as this sure smells.
On May 27, 2009, FBI Special Agent Frederick Kingston (Kingston), accompanied by a passenger, Assistant United States Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson (Thompson), drove the vehicle from the storage facility, lost control, and crashed it. The circumstances as to why Kingston and Thompson were driving the vehicle are not entirely clear.FN1 At least one document in the record indicates that Thompson was moving the vehicle to return it to MIC.
FN1. MIC has filed a separate case against the government under the Freedom of Information Act, MIC v. Department of Justice, 11–10762, which is assigned to the undersigned. Whether this case has any vitality in light of the Court’s decision is not clear.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. U.S. 2011 WL 4506103, 1 (E.D.Mich.) (E.D.Mich.,2011)
In seeking discovery, MIC suggests that the federal agent took and crashed its $750,000 Ferrari while on a “joyride.” If this was indeed the case, that fact would not help MIC. As the government points out, the FTCA narrows the context of liability to its employees’ tortious acts performed within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Whether an employee acted within this scope is a matter of state law. See RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1143 (6th Cir.1996). Under Michigan law, an employee is acting within the scope of his employment unless he “steps aside from his employment to ... accomplish some purpose of his own.” Green v. Shell Oil Co., 181 Mich.App. 439, 444, 450 N.W.2d 50 (1989) (quoting Martin v. Jones, 302 Mich. 355, 356, 4 N.W.2d 686 (1942)). The question is whether the employee “could in some way have been held to have been promoting his master’s business.” Bryant v. Brannen, 180 Mich.App. 87, 95, 446 N.W.2d 847 (1989). The use by federal employees of a detained vehicle for pleasure a/k/a “joy riding” would very likely fall outside of the scope of their employment. If that were the case, MIC would not be able to bring a claim against the government in the first instance.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. U.S. 2011 WL 4506103, 4 (E.D.Mich.) (E.D.Mich.,2011)
A correct assessment, unless the damage is done intentionally - the King can do no wrong:
Sovereign immunity prevents suits against the United States without its consent and precludes district courts' jurisdiction. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983). “Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Although the FTCA constitutes a waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity that grants jurisdiction to the district courts, such jurisdiction is limited to particular circumstances. See Flechsig v. United States, 991 F.2d 300, 303 (6th Cir.1993). The FTCA defines this jurisdictional scope. Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) provides that district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the United States for damages caused by the negligence of federal employees while acting within the scope of their employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private individual, would be liable under state law. Id.
However, the jurisdiction allowed by the FTCA is subject to a host of enumerated exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2680. At issue here is § 2680(c), which states that the waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to “[a]ny claim arising in respect of ... the detention of any goods, merchandise or other property by any officer of customs or excise of any other law enforcement officer.” This is known as the “detention-of-goods” exception.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. U.S. 2011 WL 4506103, 2 (E.D.Mich.) (E.D.Mich.,2011)
Usually, when a vehicle is taken into custody, a tow truck is used, and costs are assessed. You would think that with a $750K vehicle, a tow truck would also be used--with the towing cost perhaps charged to the owner, depending on the circumstances.
Obviously, I don't have all of the facts, but a joyride seems possible from what is written.
Buler? Buler?.......Buler??
Buler? Buler?.......Buler??
MMMmmmmmaybe ...
There is a case of mistaken thread posting!
Ping to you, counselor.
Thanks
Exactly my point. The insurance company was seeking deep pockets in suing the government.
But the employer (any Employer in my opinion) should not be held liable for the acts of an employee well outside the duties of his position.
These agents should be prosecuted under state law and be sued personally for recompense of the insurers losses.
A correct assessment, unless the damage is done intentionally - the King can do no wrong:
We went to war over this concept. I guess we need to do it again.
Typically with a car of this value, a flat-bed tow truck would be used, not just any regular tow truck.
So you go after the individual ‘agents’ and take their homes ad anything else you can before they file for bankruptcy.
Another example of the arrogance of federal government ! >PS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.