Feres v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Feres v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 12–13, 1950
Decided December 4, 1950
Full case name Feres, Executrix, v. United States, Jefferson v. United States; United States v. Griggs, Executrix
Citations 340 U.S. 135 (more)
71 S. Ct. 153; 95 L. Ed. 152; 1950 U.S. LEXIS 1352
Prior history On writs of certiorari to the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits, 339 U.S. 910, 339 U.S. 951
Subsequent history On remand: 177 F.2d 535 and 178 F.2d 518, affirmed; 178 F.2d 1, reversed
Holding
The Court affirmed the decisions of the courts of appeals which held that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) did not apply to claims by petitioner servicemen. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals which extended the FTCA remedy to active duty servicemen. The Court held that respondent United States was not liable under the FTCA for injuries to servicemen arising out of or in the course of activity incident to service.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Jackson, joined by unanimous
Concurrence Douglas
Laws applied
Federal Tort Claims Act

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. [1] The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

The practical effect is that the Feres doctrine effectively bars service members from successfully collecting damages for personal injuries, whether or not they were suffered in the performance of their duties. It also bars families of service members from filing wrongful death or loss of consortium actions when a service member is killed or injured. The bar does not extend to killed or injured family members, so a spouse or child may still sue the United States for tort claims (such as medical malpractice[citation needed]), nor does it bar service members from filing either in loco parentis on their child's behalf or filing for wrongful death or loss of consortium as a companion claim to a spouse or child's suit.

There have been exceptions to the Feres doctrine where active duty members have been allowed to sue for injuries when the court found that civilians could have been harmed in the same manner under the same circumstances in which the service member's injuries occurred. [2]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ According to Johnson v. United States , (1987) 481 U.S. 681, 686-692, which reaffirmed Feres, the tortfeasor under a Feres analysis does not have to be a member of the armed forces, but can be any civilian employee of the federal government. In Johnson, a Coast Guard helicopter pilot was killed when Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controllers assumed positive radar control over the helicopter during a rescue mission and caused the aircraft to crash into the side of a mountain on the Hawaiian island of Molakai. The United States escaped liability relying on Feres.
  2. ^ In Schoenfeld v. Quamme, 492 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007), the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals found that Schoenfeld, an active duty Marine at the time of his injury, could proceed with a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act due to the location and nature of his injury since Schoenfeld was doing what any member of the public could have done at the time.

[edit] External links