Postal Service v. Konan · ¶36

As with “miscarriage,” we disagree with Konan’s attempt to limit “loss” to only inadvertent losses.See Brief for Re- spondent 27–28; post, at 411–413 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.). A loss can be the result of another person’s intentional mis- conduct.One can, for example, suffer a tax “loss” that re- sults from “embezzlement.”See, e. g., Burnet v. Huff, 288 U. S. 156, 160 (1933).An army can suffer “loss” of soldiers as a result of the intentional conduct of the enemy.Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language 1465 (1942 ed.).And, in the mail context, ordinary speakers commonly described a “loss” of mail from theft, including theft by the carrier.Just a year before Congress enacted the FTCA, the Army explained that “[v]irtually all loss of mail through theft occurs at terminal transfer points outside this country.”Pittsfield, Mass., Berkshire Evening Eagle, Feb. 9, 1945,…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.