|
''United States v. Johnson'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court barred the widow of a serviceman killed while piloting a helicopter on a United States Coast Guard rescue mission from bringing her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the "FTCA" or the "Act"). The decision was based upon the Supreme Court's holding in ''Feres v. United States'': "()he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service." ==Background== Lieutenant Commander Johnson, a Coast Guard helicopter pilot stationed in Hawaii, was dispatched along with his crew, to search for a vessel in distress. Because of inclement weather and poor visibility, Johnson "requested radar assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), . . . the FAA controllers assumed positive radar control over the helicopter. Shortly thereafter, the helicopter crashed into the side of a mountain and . . . all the crew members, including Johnson, were killed in the crash." Johnson's widow and personal representative of his estate brought a wrongful death action against the government pursuant to the FTCA. Plaintiff alleged that Johnson's death was due to the negligence of the FAA flight controllers. The government filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiff was barred from recovering damages from the federal government, because Johnson died while performing his military duties. The district court granted the motion, based solely on the Supreme Court's decision in Feres. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, noting that the action did not involve military service. 〔 Johnson v. United States, 749 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11th Cir. 1985), affirmed on rehearing, 779 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1986), rev'd, 481 U.S. 681 (1987). The court noted that: ::The complaint in this case alleges that plaintiff's decedent was killed because civilian FAA air traffic controllers negligently guided the helicopter he was piloting into a mountain. There is absolutely no hint in the scant record before this court that the conduct of any alleged tortfeasor even remotely connected to the military will be scrutinized if this case proceeds to trial. Nor is there a suggestion that examining the conduct of a civilian would in any way implicate the military services. Since the prosecution of plaintiff's claim cannot conceivably involve or compromise a military relationship or, for that matter, the military discipline structure, the prosecution of plaintiff's claim will not encroach upon the rationale which "serves largely if not exclusively as the predicate for the Feres doctrine." Johnson, 749 F.2d at 1539 (footnote omitted) (quoting in part Hunt v. United States, 636 F.2d 580, 599 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). 〕 The court determined that since the alleged tortfeasors were civilian employees of the government, rather than military employees, judicial second-guessing of the civilian's conduct would not adversely affect military discipline. The Eleventh Circuit's original opinion antedated the Supreme Court's opinion in Shearer. The Eleventh Circuit therefore granted the government's petition for rehearing en banc, to reconsider the Johnson case in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Shearer. By the time the en banc consideration occurred, Shearer had been decided by the Court. In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Shearer "reinforced the analysis set forth in the panel opinion." 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「United States v. Johnson (1987)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|