## Facts

- Navajo families living on public lands in San Juan County, Utah depended on horses and burros for transportation, herding, and subsistence.
- Beginning in 1952, federal range officials seized the families’ horses and burros and disposed of them, often by sale for slaughter.
- The government relied on a Utah impoundment statute for “abandoned” horses, but mandatory federal notice requirements under the Taylor Grazing Act’s implementing range regulations were not satisfied.
- The families sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for wrongful destruction of their animals and related losses.
- The district court initially entered a single lump-sum damages award for all plaintiffs and issued an injunction against further interference; on Supreme Court review, liability under the FTCA was recognized, the injunction was rejected, and damages were remanded for particularized findings and apportionment.
- On remand, the district court increased damages, including uniform per-animal valuations, long-term consequential losses to other livestock operations, and a flat amount per plaintiff for mental pain and suffering.
- The United States appealed the remand damages award to the Tenth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s valuation of the seized horses and burros was supported by competent evidence under Utah tort-damages principles.
2. Whether consequential damages for loss of use (including alleged reductions in the value of sheep, goats, and cattle herds over multiple years) were proven with reasonable certainty and limited to a reasonable period.
3. Whether emotional-distress awards could be granted in uniform, undifferentiated amounts without individualized proof.
4. Whether the damages trial was conducted in a manner providing a fair and impartial adjudication.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the damages judgment and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.
- The court held that the damages findings were speculative and arbitrary and lacked adequate evidentiary support.
- The court directed that the new damages trial be conducted before a different district judge due to concerns arising from the conduct of the proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, damages must be established with sufficient particularity to permit meaningful appellate review and must be determined under the applicable state law measure of damages.
- Property damages for destroyed animals must be grounded in discernible values; the fact that an animal is trained or preferred does not, by itself, establish irreplaceability or justify unsupported valuations.
- Consequential “loss of use” damages must be tied to demonstrable economic loss attributable to the tort and confined to a reasonable replacement period rather than extended, unsupported projections.
- Emotional-distress damages, where recoverable, require individualized proof; flat per-plaintiff awards are improper when the harm and its severity differ among claimants.
- A damages award cannot rest on generalized assumptions, arbitrary percentages, or undifferentiated group findings; each plaintiff’s damages must be proven with reasonable certainty.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit required a new, judge-reassigned damages trial because the district court’s remand award relied on unsupported valuations, speculative consequential losses, and uniform emotional-distress amounts inconsistent with individualized, evidence-based FTCA damages adjudication.


United States v. Hatahley, 257 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1958)