Taylor v. United States
Headline: Court refuses review, letting Ninth Circuit limit emotional-distress and loss-of-consortium damages to $250,000 where the Government raised a California damage cap after trial, leaving a circuit split unresolved.
Holding: The Supreme Court denied review, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the Government’s posttrial invocation of California’s $250,000 cap on non-economic damages was not waived and therefore applies.
- Reduces recoverable non-economic damages to $250,000 in the Ninth Circuit.
- Allows the Government to raise state damage caps after trial in that circuit.
- Leaves inconsistent rules across different federal appeals courts.
Summary
Background
A woman sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after her husband was left comatose when disconnected from a ventilator in a military hospital. She won $500,000 for emotional distress and loss of consortium. After judgment, the Government argued for the first time that California law limits non-economic damages to $250,000, a claim the District Court rejected but the Ninth Circuit later accepted.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a state damage cap must be raised before or during trial, or whether it can be invoked later. Under federal practice, legal defenses that avoid or limit a plaintiff’s claim generally must be pleaded early, but the Ninth Circuit treated the California statute as a limit on liability rather than an affirmative defense, so failing to plead it did not waive the cap. Other circuits had reached the opposite conclusion, viewing identical caps as waived when not timely raised.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court denied review, the Ninth Circuit’s result stands in that circuit and reduces the woman’s recoverable non-economic damages to $250,000. The decision affects people suing the federal government in the Ninth Circuit and creates inconsistent rules elsewhere. The split among appeals courts remains unresolved and could cause different outcomes depending on location.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White dissented from the denial of review and said the Court should grant review to resolve the clear conflict among Courts of Appeals about treating state damage caps as affirmative defenses.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?