Galanti v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
709 F.2d 706 (1983)
Michael Thevis was a convicted felon. Thevis was in federal custody while the government investigated his criminal activities, but he escaped. One of the government’s key witnesses in its case against Thevis was Roger Underhill. Thevis had attempted to kill Underhill in the past. The agent in charge of investigating Thevis on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was Paul King. King believed that Underhill was in constant and grave danger. King arranged for Underhill to assume a new identity through the FBI’s witness-protection program. Underhill, however, wanted to sell a tract of land that he owned prior to entering the witness-protection program. Against King’s advice, Underhill insisted on visiting the property several times and attempting to conduct the sale personally. Underhill was in frequent contact with King. Underhill called King to tell him that Underhill would be at the property the following day showing it to a potential buyer, Isaac Galanti. King did not warn Galanti of the danger Galanti risked by accompanying Underhill to the secluded property, nor did King surveil the property during the scheduled rendezvous. While Underhill and Galanti inspected the property, they were shot and killed at Thevis’s behest. Galanti’s widow, Vivian Galanti (plaintiff) sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Vivian alleged that King negligently failed to warn Galanti against a foreseeable danger. To establish a case of negligence, Georgia law required that a plaintiff show that the defendant owed a legal duty to the victim. Although Georgia’s rule was that a person generally does not have a duty to warn others of a foreseeable danger, Vivian argued that the facts of the case fell within an exception. The United States moved to dismiss Vivian’s case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the suit. Vivian appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Morgan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.