|
''Feres v. United States'', 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari 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.〔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''.〕 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 collecting damages from the United States Government for personal injuries experienced 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, 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.〔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.〕 Injuries experienced by service members while on active duty are covered by various Veteran Administration benefit legislation. ==Facts == Feres v. United States combined three cases pending in the federal courts: The Feres case, the Jefferson case and the Griggs case. A common issue arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as to which Courts of Appeals are in conflict, makes it appropriate to consider three cases in one opinion. The Feres case: The District Court dismissed an action by the executrix of Feres against the United States to〔(U.S. 135, 137 )〕 recover for death caused by negligence. Decedent perished by fire in the barracks at Pine Camp, New York, while on active duty in service of the United States. Negligence was alleged in quartering him in barracks known or which should have been known to be unsafe because of a defective heating plant, and in failing to maintain an adequate fire watch. The Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, dismissed the case. The Jefferson case: Plaintiff, while in the Army, was required to undergo an abdominal operation. About eight months later, in the course of another operation after plaintiff was discharged, a towel 30 inches long by 18 inches wide, marked "Medical Department U.S. Army," was discovered and removed from his stomach. The complaint alleged that it was negligently left there by the army surgeon. The District Court, being doubtful of the law, refused without prejudice the Government's pretrial motion to dismiss the complaint. After trial, finding negligence as a fact, Judge Chesnut carefully reexamined the issue of law and concluded that the Act does not charge the United States with liability in this type of case. The Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed dismissal of the case. The Griggs case: The District Court dismissed the complaint of Griggs' executrix, which alleged that while on active duty he met death because of negligent and unskillful medical treatment by army surgeons. The Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, reversed and, one judge dissenting, held that the complaint stated a cause of action under the Act. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court in certiorari. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Feres v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|