Taber v. Maine
67 F.3d 1029 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the government is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a servicemember if the acts are foreseeable risks of the military enterprise, such as off-base drunk driving after customary on-base drinking. The Feres doctrine does not bar a claim by another servicemember who was injured off-base while on liberty and engaged in purely personal activities not incident to military service.
Facts:
- Robert S. Maine, a U.S. Navy serviceman stationed in Guam, went on liberty after a 24-hour duty shift.
- Throughout the day, Maine consumed beer and cocktails at various on-base locations, including a beach party, his barracks, the enlisted men's club, and a party in a superior officer's room.
- By late evening, Maine's comrades observed that he appeared to be drunk.
- Around 11:30 p.m., Maine decided to drive his car off-base to get something to eat.
- Scott A. Taber, another Navy serviceman, was also on liberty for the weekend.
- Taber left the base in a car with his civilian friend, Estelita Stills, to spend the weekend at her off-base home.
- While Taber and Stills were driving on a public highway, Maine's vehicle crashed into them.
- The collision caused by Maine severely injured Taber.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott A. Taber sued Robert S. Maine and the United States Government in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The government moved for summary judgment, arguing Maine was not acting within the scope of his employment.
- The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the government from the case.
- The district court also denied Taber's motion to amend his complaint to add claims of direct negligence against the Navy, ruling such claims would be barred by the Feres doctrine.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial against Maine individually.
- The district court found Maine liable for negligence and awarded Taber $300,000 in damages.
- Taber appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 Feres doctrine bar a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act by a serviceman who is injured off-base, while on liberty for personal recreation, by the negligence of another off-duty serviceman whose intoxication resulted from customary, on-base drinking activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi, Circuit Judge
No, the Feres doctrine does not bar the claim. The court first held that under the applicable law of Guam, which follows California's expansive view of respondeat superior, the government is vicariously liable for Maine's negligence. The court reasoned that Maine's on-base drinking was a customary incident of his employment relationship with the Navy, making his subsequent drunk driving a foreseeable risk characteristic of the military enterprise. Turning to the second issue, the court conducted an extensive analysis of the Feres doctrine, concluding it is best understood as a judicial attempt to align the FTCA with the exclusivity provisions of workers' compensation statutes. The controlling test is whether the plaintiff's injuries arose 'out of or in the course of activity incident to service.' The court found that Taber, who was on liberty, off-base, and engaged in purely personal recreation with a civilian companion, was not acting incident to his service. His situation was analogous to the Supreme Court's decision in Brooks v. United States, which allowed recovery, and distinct from cases where the Feres bar was applied because the servicemember's injury was more closely connected to military life or on-base activities.
Analysis:
This decision provides a significant clarification and rationalization of the confusing Feres doctrine by grounding its 'incident to service' test in traditional workers' compensation and scope of employment principles. By doing so, the court offers a more predictable framework for lower courts, shifting the focus from the often-muddled 'military discipline' rationale to the nature of the injured servicemember's activity at the time of injury. The ruling narrows the scope of the Feres bar, potentially allowing more FTCA claims by service members injured during off-duty, non-military activities, thereby holding the government accountable for foreseeable risks of its enterprise that harm its own personnel in their private lives.
Unlock the full brief for Taber v. Maine