Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/460

 502us2$23Z 08-19-96 17:41:21 PAGES OPINPGT

302

MOLZOF v. UNITED STATES Syllabus

ages by contrasting them with “actual or compensatory damages” is demonstrated by § 2674’s second clause—which limits governmental liability in States permitting only punitive damages in wrongful-death actions to “actual or compensatory damages, measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from. . . death”—is unpersuasive, since it is undermined both by the well-established common-law meaning of “punitive damages” and by the Government’s concession that the “pecuniary injuries” standard does not apply in determining compensatory damages in non-wrongful-death tort suits. Moreover, the Government’s interpretation of “punitive damages” would be difficult and impractical to apply, creating enormous problems in determining the actual loss suffered in particular kinds of cases. Furthermore, the fact that this Court has not relied on the common law in interpreting some of § 2680’s exceptions to FTCA liability is not persuasive evidence that it should do the same here, since many of those exceptions—e. g., § 2680(a)’s exception for claims based on the performance of a “discretionary function”—simply have no common-law antecedent, while others serve a qualitatively different purpose than § 2674’s bar on “punitive damages,” having been designed to protect from disruption certain important governmental functions—e. g., the handling of mail under § 2680(b). Pp. 308–312. (c) The Court of Appeals erred in deciding that the FTCA barred Mrs. Molzof from recovering damages for her husband’s future medical expenses and his loss of enjoyment of life. It is undisputed that those claims are based solely on a simple negligence theory. Thus, the damages sought are not “punitive damages” under the FTCA because they do not fall within the common-law meaning of that term. P. 312. 2. However, the case must be remanded for the lower courts to resolve in the first instance whether the damages sought are recoverable as compensatory damages under the law of Wisconsin, the State in which Mr. Molzof ’s injuries occurred. P. 312. 911 F. 2d 18, reversed and remanded. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Daniel R. Rottier argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Virginia M. Antoine and Thomas H. Geyer. Acting Deputy Solicitor General Wright argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Clifford M. Sloan, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and Irene M. Solet.