Taylor v. United States

Background

A woman sued the United States under a federal law that lets people sue the Government after her husband was left comatose when staff disconnected his ventilator in a military hospital. She won a $500,000 judgment for emotional distress and loss of consortium. After the trial, the Government argued for the first time that California law limits non-economic damages to $250,000 and asked the courts to cut the award.

Reasoning

The core question is whether a state law that limits non-economic damages must be pleaded early or can be raised later. Federal Rule 8(c) says matters that avoid or defeat a plaintiff’s claim must be pleaded, or they are waived. The Ninth Circuit held that the statute is a mere limitation on liability, not an affirmative defense, so the Government did not waive it by raising it after trial. Two other appeals courts had reached the opposite conclusion, treating such caps as affirmative defenses that are waived if not timely pleaded.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to review the case, the Ninth Circuit decision stands, so this woman’s $500,000 award may be cut to $250,000 under California law. More broadly, people suing the Government, and courts in different regions, may get different results depending on which appeals court controls. The legal question remains unsettled nationally because the Court denied review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial of review and said the Court should take the case to resolve the conflict among federal appeals courts.