Feres v. United States
Headline: Court bars members of the armed forces from suing the United States under the Tort Claims Act for injuries incident to military service, leaving compensation to military benefit systems and limiting civilian-style negligence suits.
Holding: The Court held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen that arise out of or in the course of activity incident to military service.
- Prevents active-duty service members from suing the United States under the Tort Claims Act.
- Leaves injured servicemembers and families dependent on military compensation and pension systems.
- Allows lawsuits only for injuries not incident to military service or by discharged personnel.
Summary
Background
Three lawsuits were brought by servicemen or their survivors after injuries or death occurred while the claimants were on active duty. One soldier died in a barracks fire, another had an army towel left inside him after surgery, and a third died after alleged negligent medical care. Lower courts and different Courts of Appeals reached conflicting results about whether the Tort Claims Act permits these kinds of suits.
Reasoning
The Court considered the Act’s language that the United States is liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." The Justices found no private-individual analogy for injuries that arise out of military service, and they emphasized existing federal systems that provide compensation for servicemen and their families. The Court also noted practical problems of applying varying state laws to soldiers who have no choice where they serve. Concluding that Congress had not clearly created a new right to sue for service-connected injuries, the Court held the Government not liable under the Act for harms "incident to the service." The judgments in two cases were affirmed and one reversed.
Real world impact
Active-duty service members and their families cannot use the Tort Claims Act to recover for injuries that are incident to military service. Instead, claimants rely on military compensation, pensions, and statutory benefits. The Court noted that Congress could change this result by altering the statute.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas is recorded as concurring in the Court’s result, but no separate opinion is given in the text.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?