## Facts

- Isaac N. Galanti, a prospective real-estate buyer, accompanied Roger Dean Underhill to inspect an isolated tract of undeveloped property in Fulton County, Georgia.
- Underhill was a key government witness in an FBI investigation of Michael G. Thevis, a convicted felon who had escaped federal custody and remained a fugitive.
- FBI Special Agent Paul V. King, Jr., led the investigation and knew Thevis had previously attempted to kill Underhill; King believed Underhill was in constant, grave danger.
- The government arranged for Underhill to enter a witness-protection program, but Underhill refused until he could sell the property.
- On the night before the showing, Underhill told King he would be at the property the next day with a potential buyer, Galanti.
- King neither warned Galanti nor arranged surveillance or protection at the property.
- Galanti and Underhill were shot and killed at the property as part of a plan attributed to Thevis to prevent Underhill’s testimony; Thevis was later convicted in federal court for arranging Underhill’s murder, with Galanti killed as an innocent bystander.
- Vivian W. Galanti, Galanti’s widow, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligence based on King’s failure to warn or protect Galanti.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding Georgia law imposed no actionable duty on these facts.

## Issues

1. Under Georgia tort law as incorporated by the FTCA, did the FBI agent owe Isaac Galanti a legal duty to warn or protect him from foreseeable criminal violence by a third party?
2. If foreseeability was shown, did any recognized Georgia exception to the general no-duty rule apply (risk creation, control of the dangerous actor/instrumentality, or voluntary undertaking to protect the plaintiff)?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Applying Georgia law, the court held the agent owed no actionable duty to warn or protect Galanti from Thevis’s criminal acts.
- The court found no applicable exception: the agent did not create the risk, had no control over Thevis (a fugitive), and did not undertake to protect Galanti.
- The court declined to recognize a generalized law-enforcement duty to warn third parties absent a special relationship or statutory command.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, the United States’ liability depends on whether a private person would be liable under the law of the state where the alleged act or omission occurred.
- Georgia’s general rule is that a person has no duty to warn or protect another from foreseeable harm caused by a third party’s criminal acts based solely on knowledge of the danger.
- Georgia recognizes limited duty exceptions, including:
  - where the defendant’s conduct creates or increases the risk of harm;
  - where the defendant has the ability and legal right to control the dangerous person or instrumentality; and
  - where the defendant voluntarily undertakes to protect a specific individual, creating a duty to use reasonable care in performing the undertaking.
- Foreseeability alone does not establish a legal duty when Georgia law otherwise recognizes none.

## Conclusion

Because Georgia law imposed no duty on the FBI agent to warn or protect Galanti from a fugitive’s criminal violence, and none of Georgia’s limited duty exceptions applied, the FTCA wrongful-death complaint failed to state a claim and was properly dismissed.


Galanti v. United States, 709 F.2d 706 (11th Cir. 1983)