Feres v. United States
340 U.S. 135 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for injuries to members of the armed forces where the injuries arise out of, or are in the course of, activity incident to service.
Facts:
- In the Feres case, Feres, a serviceman on active duty, died in a barracks fire at Pine Camp, New York.
- The barracks fire was allegedly caused by a defective heating plant, which the Army knew or should have known was unsafe.
- In the Jefferson case, Jefferson, while in the Army, underwent an abdominal operation performed by an army surgeon.
- During the operation, the surgeon negligently left a 30-by-18-inch towel, marked 'Medical Department U. S. Army,' in Jefferson's stomach.
- The towel was discovered in a subsequent operation about eight months after Jefferson was discharged from the Army.
- In the Griggs case, Griggs, while on active duty, died as a result of alleged negligent and unskillful medical treatment by army surgeons.
Procedural Posture:
- In Feres, the executrix sued the United States in federal district court, which dismissed the action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- In Jefferson, the plaintiff sued the United States in federal district court. After a trial, the court concluded the U.S. was not liable and dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- In Griggs, the executrix sued the United States in federal district court, which dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that a cause of action existed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in all three cases to resolve the conflict among the circuit courts of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Tort Claims Act permit a member of the armed forces to recover from the United States government for injuries sustained while on active duty and resulting from the negligence of other members of the armed forces?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
No. The Federal Tort Claims Act does not permit recovery for injuries to service members that are incident to their military service. The court reasoned that the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity is based on circumstances where a 'private individual' would be liable, and there is no analogous private liability for injuries a soldier sustains from their superiors or the government. The relationship between the government and its service members is 'distinctively federal in character' and should not be subjected to the varying tort laws of different states where a service member might be stationed. Furthermore, Congress has already established a comprehensive statutory compensation and benefits system for service members injured in the line of duty, suggesting it did not intend for the FTCA to provide a duplicative tort remedy. The court distinguished this from Brooks v. United States, where the injured soldier was on furlough and not acting in the course of military duty.
Analysis:
This case establishes the Feres doctrine, a significant, judicially created exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity. The doctrine bars claims by service members for any injuries that are 'incident to service,' effectively preventing litigation for a wide range of harms, including medical malpractice and negligence by other military personnel. This holding has had a profound impact, shaping the legal relationship between the government and its armed forces and insulating the military from tort liability that would otherwise exist. The Feres doctrine remains a controversial but firmly established principle of law, frequently criticized but consistently upheld by courts.
Unlock the full brief for Feres v. United States