507 Opinion of the Court. We had an analogous problem before us in United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301, where the United States sued the owner and driver of a truck for the negligent injury of a soldier in the Army of the United States, claiming damages for loss of the soldier's service during the period of his disability. We were asked to extend the common-law action of per quod servitium amisit to the government-soldier relation. We declined, stating that the problem involved federal fiscal affairs over which Congress, not the Court, should formulate the policy. The reasons for following that course in the present case are even more compelling. Here a complex of relations between federal agencies and their staffs is involved. Moreover, the claim now asserted, though the product of a law Congress passed, is a matter on which Congress has not taken a position. It presents questions of policy on which Congress has not spoken. The selection of that 2 Though the legislative history of the Act is not too helpful on this issue, such indications as there are point toward the result we reach. The Court recently made an extensive review of the history of the Tort Claims Act in Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 24-30. As there explained, much of its relevant history appears in the Seventy-seventh Congress, rather than in the Seventy-ninth Congress, which enacted it. In the Seventy-seventh Congress the bill took substantially the form in which it was finally enacted by the Seventyninth Congress. At the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee of the Seventy-seventh Congress, the question of the liability of government employees arose. Mr. Francis M. Shea, then Assistant Attorney General, explained the Government's position. In discussing the provision for administrative settlement of small claims (which is now 28 U. S. C. § 2672), Mr. Shea was questioned concerning the clause under which acceptance of an award by the claimant constitutes a release of all claims against the employee, as well as against the United States. The present § 2672 has much the same effect as § 2676, which makes a judgment against the United States a bar to action against the employee. See note 1, supra. Mr. Shea's state Opinion of the Court. 347 U.S. policy which is most advantageous to the whole involves a host of considerations that must be weighed and ap ments concerning the administrative settlement provision therefore have some relevance to the issue in the present case. "Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Shea, to line 19. Why do you provide this acceptance of the award as constituting a bar to the claim against the employee? Is that the intention of the provision, and what is the ultimate purpose of it? "Mr. SHEA. . . . It has been found that the Government, through the Department of Justice, is constantly being called on by the heads of the various agencies to go in and defend, we will say, a person who is driving a mail truck when suit is brought against him for damages or injuries caused while he was operating the truck within the scope of his duties. Allegations of negligence are usually made. It has been found, over long years of experience, that unless the Government is willing to go in and defend such persons the consequence is a very real attack upon the morale of the services. Most of these persons are not in a position to stand or defend large damage suits, and they are of course not generally in a position to secure the kind of insurance which one would if one were driving for himself. "If the Government has satisfied a claim which is made on account of a collision between a truck carrying mail and a private car, that should, in our judgment, be the end of it. After the claimant has obtained satisfaction of his claim from the Government, either by a judgment or by an administrative award, he should not be able to turn around and sue the driver of the truck. If he could sue the driver of the truck, we would have to go in and defend the driver in the suit brought against him, and there will thus be continued a very substantial burden which the Government has had to bear in conducting the defense of post-office drivers and other Government employees. "Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Have you considered the practice followed by large corporations and railway companies with respect to defense of employees who are joined as defendants in negligence actions? "Mr. SHEA. I should think that what ordinarily happens in the case of an accident caused by a driver for a big corporation is that suit is brought jointly against the two, and usually it is satisfied by the corporation, and then ordinarily the corporation's remedy against the driver is to fire him if he is negligent too often. Ordinarily 507 Opinion of the Court. praised. That function is more appropriately for those who write the laws, rather than for those who interpret them. Affirmed. the corporations cover such risks by insurance, which is paid for by the employer, I think. "The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shea, you are discussing and directing your remarks to the matter where, if a person is injured and files a claim against the Government and the Government satisfies that claim, that is the end of the claim against anybody? "Mr. SHEA. That is right. "The CHAIRMAN. What is the arrangement when the government has an employee who is guilty of gross negligence and injury results? Is there any requirement that that employee should in any way respond to the Government if it has to pay for the injury, in the event of gross negligence? "Mr. SHEA. Not if he is a Government employee. Under those circumstances, the remedy is to fire the employee. "Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. No right of subrogation is set up? "Mr. SHEA. Not against the employee." See Hearings before the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 5373 and H. R. 6463, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 9-10. See also S. Rep. No. 1196, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5. Syllabus. 347 U.S. UNITED STATES v. BORDEN COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 464. Argued April 27, 1954. Decided May 17, 1954. In a civil proceeding brought by the United States against several Chicago dairies, the complaint charged a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the sale of fluid milk in the Chicago area, in violation of the Sherman Act, and price discrimination in violation of the Clayton Act. The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that, as to the alleged Sherman Act violations, the evidence failed to establish the existence of a conspiracy; and that, though there was proof of price discrimination violative of the Clayton Act by certain of the defendants, a prior decree of that court in a private antitrust suit by a competitor enjoined the conduct in question and made it "useless" to award the Government an injunction. Held: 1. Rulings by the district judge that certain evidence offered by the Government was inadmissible did not affect the substantial rights of the parties within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2111, since it does not appear that admission of the evidence in question would have been sufficient to change the conclusion that the Government had not established a case under the Sherman Act; and on that basis the judgment of dismissal as to the Sherman Act allegations is affirmed. Pp. 516-517. 2. In view of the difference in the respective interests sought to be vindicated by the Government and by private litigants in Clayton Act proceedings, the district judge abused his discretion in refusing the Government injunctive relief against price discrimination violative of the Clayton Act solely because of the existence of a prior decree entered in a private action. Pp. 517-520. 111 F. Supp. 562, affirmed in part and remanded. Assistant Attorney General Barnes argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, John F. Davis and Daniel M. Friedman. Stuart S. Ball argued the cause for the Borden Company et al., appellees. On the brief were Mr. Ball for 514 Opinion of the Court. the Borden Company et al., and L. Edward Hart, Jr. and John Paul Stevens for the Bowman Dairy Company et al., appellees. Leo F. Tierney argued the cause for the Beloit Dairy Co., appellee. With him on the brief was Charles L. Stewart, Jr. MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States instituted this civil proceeding against ten Chicago dairies,' charging conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the sale of fluid milk to wholesale customers and others in the Chicago area, in violation of the Sherman Act, and price discrimination in violation of the Clayton Act. Prior to trial a consent decree was entered against five of the smaller defendant companies, enjoining continuation of the conduct charged in the complaint. At the close of the Government's case against the remaining five defendants, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It held that, as to the alleged violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the evidence failed to establish the existence of a conspiracy or combination; and that, though there was proof of price discrimination violative of § 2 (a) of the Clayton Act by four of the defendants,3 a prior decree in a private antitrust action brought by a competitor dairy company enjoined the conduct in question and made it "useless" to award the Government an injunction. 111 F. Supp. 562. The Government then appealed directly to this 1 The Borden Company, Bowman Dairy Company, Belmont Dairy Company, Ridgeview Farms Dairy, Beloit Dairy Company, Capitol Dairy Company, American Processing and Sales Company, Hunding Dairy Company, Meadowmoor Dairies and Western United Dairy Company. 2 Borden, Bowman, Belmont, Ridgeview and Beloit. 3 Borden, Bowman, Belmont and Ridgeview. |