Doe v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
976 F.2d 1071 (1992)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Alexis Doe and John Doe (plaintiffs), unrelated three-year-old children, were sexually molested while attending the Scott Air Force Base Day Care Center (Center). The Center was operated by federal government (defendant) employees. Alexis’s and John’s parents (the parents) reported the molestation to the police. Alexis was interviewed at a local rape crisis center and repeated her sexual molestation allegations using anatomically correct dolls. John described the molestation in detail to his parents when questioned. Alexis and John both attended therapy after the molestation. The parents sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeking $8 million in damages for medical expenses and for emotional injuries suffered by both the parents and the child victims. At trial, John’s parents testified that, after the molestation, John suffered from night terrors and began engaging in violent behavior. Alexis’s parents testified that Alexis fell into a deep depression after the molestation. The district court (1) dismissed the parents’ claims for their own emotional distress; and (2) granted each child $25,000 in damages. The parents appealed, challenging the damages award as insufficient and arguing that the court improperly dismissed the parents’ emotional-distress claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
