| Feres v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 12–13, 1950 Decided December 4, 1950 | |
| Full case name | Feres, Executrix, v. United States, Jefferson v. United States; United States v. Griggs, Executrix |
| Citations | 340 U.S. 135 (more) 71 S. Ct. 153; 95 L. Ed. 152; 1950 U.S. LEXIS 1352 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writs of certiorari to the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits, 339 U.S. 910, 339 U.S. 951 |
| Subsequent | On remand: 177 F.2d 535 and 178 F.2d 518, affirmed; 178 F.2d 1, reversed |
| Holding | |
| The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) did not apply to claims by petitioner servicemen; respondent United States was not liable under the FTCA for injuries to servicemen arising out of or in the course of activity incident to service. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Jackson, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Laws applied | |
| Federal Tort Claims Act | |
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 held 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.[1] 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.[2]
Injuries experienced by service members while on active duty are covered by various Department of Veterans Affairs benefits legislation.
The effect of the doctrine was substantially limited by a change in the law made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which created an administrative process to hear claims of medical malpractice.[3]
- ^ According to Johnson v. United States, 481 U.S. 681, 686-92 (1987), 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "New Law Permits Military Members To Seek Settlements For Medical Malpractice". NPR. Archived from the original on 2023-03-25.