Randall F. Painter, Suing as the Adm'r of the Est. of Elvon A. Painter, Deceased v. Tennessee Valley Auth., Fred Campbell, Suing as Admr. Of the Est. of Beverly Campbell, Deceased v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Randall F. Painter, Suing as the Adm'r of the Est. of Elvon A. Painter, Deceased v. Tennessee Valley Auth., Fred Campbell, Suing as Admr. Of the Est. of Beverly Campbell, Deceased v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Paulk v. Tennessee Valley Authority (alnd, 2025-04-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paulk v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Ala. · 2025 · confidence medium
The Painter plaintiffs sued TVA under Alabama’s wrongful death statute, but the opinion does not state what TVA did to cause the decedents’ deaths. 476 F.2d at 944.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: Old Carco LLC (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · confidence medium
In Painter, the personal representative of a decedent’s estate brought an action under the Wrongful Death Act against the Tennessee Valley Authority. 476 F.2d at 944.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Overton v. FCA U.S. LLC. (In re Old Carco LLC)
S.D. Ill. · 2019 · confidence medium
Id. at 944-45 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Old Carco LLC (2×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2018 · confidence medium
Id. at 944-45 (footnotes omitted); accord Springer v. Bryant , 897 F.2d 1085 , 1090-91 (11th Cir. 1990) ; see Brown v. Morgan Cty., Ala. , 518 F.Supp. 661 , 665 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mays v. Tennessee Valley Authority
E.D. Tenn. · 2010 · confidence medium
Accord Sierra Club v. TVA, 430 F.3d 1337, 1357 (11th Cir.2005) (affirming "the district court's grant of summary judgment to TVA on the Sierra Club's claim for civil penalties for past opacity violations”); Springer v. Bryant, 897 F.2d 1085, 1089 (11th Cir.1990) (affirming dismissal of death action for punitive damages against TVA); Heathcoat v. Potts, 905 F.2d 367, 372 (11th Cir.1990) (same); Painter, 476 F.2d at 944; Landreth v. TVA, No. 1:05cv188-R, 2006 WL 1793630 , at *1 (W.D.Ky.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mullins v. Crowell
N.D. Ala. · 1999 · confidence medium
Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flynn v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Flynn) (2×)
Bankr. S.D. Ga. · 1994 · confidence medium
See e.g., Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Ass’n, 777 F.2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir.1985) (finding the “established rule” to be that “punitive damages cannot be recovered from the United States or its agencies.”); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973) (Congress, in enacting provision allowing TVA to sue and be sued in tort or contract, did not waive sovereign immunity with respect to punitive damages); Commerce Federal Sav.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Washington (2×)
Bankr. S.D. Ga. · 1994 · confidence medium
See e.g., Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Ass'n, 777 F.2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir.1985) (finding the "established rule" to be that "punitive damages cannot be recovered from the United States or its agencies."); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973) (Congress, in enacting provision allowing TVA to sue and be sued in tort or contract, did not waive sovereign immunity with respect to punitive damages); Commerce Federal Sav.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Washington v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Washington) (2×)
D. Ga. · 1994 · confidence medium
See e.g., Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Ass’n, 777 F.2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir.1985) (finding the “established rule” to be that “punitive damages cannot be recovered from the United States or its agencies.”); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973) (Congress, in enacting provision allowing TVA' to sue and be sued in tort or contract, did not waive- sovereign immunity with respect to punitive damages); Commerce Federal Sav.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In Re Scott)
Bankr. W.D. Tex. · 1993 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554, 563-64 , 41 S.Ct. 593, 597 , 65 L.Ed. 1087 (1921); Smith v. Russelville Credit Assoc., 777 F.2d 1544, 1549-50 (11th Cir.1985); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bank One, Texas, N.A. And Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Mbank Houston, N.A., Plaintiffs-Third Party v. Suzan E. Taylor D/B/A Exploration Services, Defendant-Third Party v. Worth Operating, Inc., Third Party
3rd Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Ass'n, 885 F.2d 266, 273 (5th Cir.1989); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maggie Bell Heathcoat, as Administratrix for the Estate of Leonard James Heathcoat, Deceased v. Karl Potts, Kenneth Rhoden, Clyde Snoddy
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Springer, supra, at 1089 ; Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944-45 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam). 5 Consequently, we conclude that the judgment of the district court dismissing this action is due to be AFFIRMED. 1 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olney Savings & Loan Association v. Trinity Banc Savings Association
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554, 563-564 , 41 S.Ct. 593, 597 , 65 L.Ed. 1087, 1092 (1921); Smith v. Russellville Credit Assoc., 777 F.2d 1544, 1549-50 (11th Cir.1985); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olney Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Trinity Banc Savings Ass'n
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Co. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554, 563-564 , 41 S.Ct. 593, 597 , 65 L.Ed. 1087, 1092 (1921); Smith v. Russellville Credit Assoc., 777 F.2d 1544, 1549-50 (11th Cir.1985); Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tooke v. Miles City Prod. Credit As
Mont. · 1988 · confidence medium
Painter, 476 F.2d at 944.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles Stinson Smith and Jimmie Dean Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Association
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973); Missouri Pacific R.R. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554 , 41 S.Ct. 593 , 65 L.Ed. 1087 (1921).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mark Wayne v. Tennessee Valley Authority
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
(Emphasis added.) Because TVA is a federally owned corporation which is an agency or instrumentality of the United States, Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1973), appellants contend that their action is a tort claim against the United States and that they had two years from the date their claim “accrued” to file suit.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Doty v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 1981 · confidence medium
Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. United States
M.D. Tenn. · 1976 · confidence medium
Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943, 945, n. 5 (5th Cir. 1973); Latch v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 312 F.Supp. 1069 (N.D.Miss.1970).
cited Cited "see" Carlton G. Springer, Sr., as Administrator of the Estate of Bettie I. Springer, Deceased v. Charles Ray Bryant and Tennessee Valley Authority
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d at 944 .
cited Cited "see" Kalwitz v. La Porte Production Credit Ass'n
Ind. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1973)." 703 F.2d at 1101 ; see also Smith, supra. .
discussed Cited "see" Sparkman v. Sparkman
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1973) (federal instrumentality not liable for punitive damages despite "sue and be sued" clause in charter without express congressional authorization for such liability). 23 The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
discussed Cited "see" Merced Production Credit Ass'n v. Sparkman
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1973) (federal instrumentality not liable for punitive damages despite “sue and be sued” clause in charter without express congressional authorization for such liability).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sterrett v. Milk River Production Credit Ass'n
D. Mont. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Assoc., 777 F.2d 1544, 1549-50 , (11th Cir.1985); see also, Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1973). 5 . 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (n) excludes from the coverage of the FTCA “any claim arising from the activities of a Federal land bank, a Federal intermediate credit bank, or a bank of cooperatives.” 6 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." John A. Queen and Queen Electric Manufacturing Company v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Mike Butler and Craven Crowell, Defendants (2×)
6th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1973) (TVA not liable for punitive damages where United States would not be); United States v. Pressnell, 328 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1964) (TVA not liable for costs in eminent domain proceeding, because United States, real party in interest, would not be liable); Lynn v. United States, 110 F.2d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 1940) (TVA not liable for flood damage because "(t)he improvement of the river is not a tort which is unlawful, but an act which the United States had the right to do and commanded this agent to do"); Sligh v. Tennes…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. Tennessee Valley Authority
M.D. Tenn. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Painter v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 476 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1973); Fowler v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 321 F.2d 566 (6th Cir. 1963); Smith v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 436 F.Supp. 151 (E.D.Tenn.1977); Musgrave v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 319 F.Supp. 1330 (N.D.Ala.1975); Brewer v. Sheco Construction Co., 327 F.Supp. 1017 (W.D.Ky.1971); Littleton v. Vitro Corp., 130 F.Supp. 774 (N.D.Ala.1955) (cases in which federal courts exercised jurisdiction over TVA in simple tort actions).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Randall F. Painter, Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Elvon A. Painter, Deceased
v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Fred Campbell, Suing as Admr. Of the Estate of Beverly Campbell, Deceased v. Tennessee Valley Authority
72-3690.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 28, 1973.
476 F.2d 943
Published

476 F.2d 943

Randall F. PAINTER, suing as the Administrator of the Estate
of Elvon A. Painter, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Fred CAMPBELL, suing as Admr. of the Estate of Beverly
Campbell, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 72-3690, 72-3691 Summary Calendar.[a]

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 1973.

Alva C. Caine, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert H. Marquis, Gen. Counsel, Beauchamp E. Brogan, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Beverly S. Burbage, and Charles A. Wagner, III, Tenn. Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants-appellees.

Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~943]1

These two actions brought under the Alabama wrongful death act[1] against the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.

2

The TVA is a federally owned corporation and it is conceded to be an agency or instrumentality of the United States. Though it may sue or be sued in contract or tort,[2] Congress has made no provisions allowing suit against it for punitive damages.

3

The plaintiffs candidly concede that pursuant to Alabama law the only damages recoverable under the wrongful death statute are punitive damages. There is no provision in Alabama law establishing a right in the decedent's survivors to recover compensatory damages for a wrongful death. Moreover, we reject the argument that the damages awarded under the statute are, regardless of the label applied by the Alabama courts, inherently compensatory to any extent. Since the objectives of punitive damage awards are totally unrelated to the purposes of compensation, it would be a mere happenstance if a verdict for punitive damages equalled compensatory damages in this cause. The purpose of this law as declared of the courts of Alabama is binding on this court. It simply will not do to allow plaintiff's to utilize Alabama's wrongful death law authorizing punitive recovery as a surrogate authority to recover compensatory damages by assuming our own view of its true purpose or measure of damages to be awarded which the statute does not authorize and Alabama courts declare is not present. See Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company v. United States, 352 U.S. 128, 77 S. Ct. 186, 1 L.Ed.2d 189 (1956).

4

The district court concluded, on the authority of Littleton v. Vitro Corp. of America, 130 F.Supp. 774 (N.D.Ala. 1955), that the action for punitive damages would not lie against the TVA, under the established rule that punitive damages cannot be recovered from the United States or its agencies. See Missouri Pacific R. R. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554, 41 S.Ct. 593, 65 L.Ed. 1087 (1921); Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Texas, 229 F.2d 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 907, 76 S.Ct. 695, 100 L.Ed. 1442 (1956). See also Fowler v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 208 F.Supp. 828 (E.D.Tenn. 1962), aff'd on other grounds, 321 F.2d 566 (6th Cir. 1963).[3]

5

It is altogether anamolous that similarly situated survivors could maintain this action against the TVA under the law of practically any other state[4] while those who have the misfortune of being relegated to the use of Alabama law are permitted no right of action at all. This lack of uniformity of tort responsibility of a federal institution based on the fortuity of geography is irrational. However, this inferior federal court has no power and declines to assume the temerity to so intrude in matters traditionally committed to the States as to declare the existence of a federal right in the survivors to recover for a decedent's death, even though the "policy . . . [of recognizing such a right] has become itself a part of our law, to be given its appropriate weight not only in matters of statutory construction but also in those of decisional law." Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 390-391, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 1782, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970).

6

The aberration in such cases must find its remedy through an appropriate Congressional waiver of the TVA's immunity to punitive damages[5] or by the creation of some uniform federal right of action, or by Alabama's amendment or reinterpretation of its law.

7

The decisions in these cases are in all respects

[*~944]8

Affirmed.

a

Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N. Y., 431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970.)

1

Ala.Code tit. 7, Sec. 123 (1960)

2

16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 831c(b); Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U.S. 381, 59 S.Ct. 516, 83 L.Ed. 784 (1939); Adams v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 254 F.Supp. 78 (E.D.Tenn. 1965); Littleton v. Vitro Corp. of America, 130 F.Supp. 774 (N.D.Ala. 1955)

3

The same district court which decided Littleton v. Vitro Corp. of America, supra, has reached similar results in at least three other cases, one of which was decided as early as 1940. During this time the State of Alabama has not seen the need to amend the statute or to change its construction

4

In Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, supra, the Supreme Court observed that apparently the punitive construction of wrongful death statutes prevailed only in Massachusetts and Alabama

5

An analogous result obtained in actions brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., prior to its amendment in 1947. The present 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2674 provides:

The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.

If, however, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of the place where the act or omission complained of occurred provides, or has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the United States shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages, measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death to the persons respectively, for whose benefit the action was brought, in lieu thereof.

The Federal Tort Claims Act does not apply, however, to actions against the Tennessee Valley Authority. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(l).