Stoker, Jimmy M.

English

Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center

Louisiana Law ReviewVolume 10 | Number 1November 1949Federal Tort Claims Act - Servicemen NotExcludedJimmy M. StokerThis Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusionin Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.Repository CitationJimmy M. Stoker, Federal Tort Claims Act - Servicemen Not Excluded , 10 La. L. Rev. (1949)Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol10/iss1/17NotesFEDERAL TORT CLAIMs ACT-SERVICEMEN NOT EXCLUDED--Twoarmy enlisted men on furlough were riding with a civilian ina privately owned automobile on a public highway when thevehicle was struck by a United States Army truck negligentlydriven by an employee of the United States Government. Thesoldiers and civilian brought suit under the Federal Tort ClaimsAct." Relying on Jefferson v. United States,2 the court of ap-peals,3 by a two to one decision, denied the claims of the soldiers,but granted recovery to the civilian. Certiorari was granted inorder that the United States Supreme Court might rule uponwhether the Federal Tort Claims Act should be interpreted toinclude claims by members of the armed forces for torts notservice connected. Held, a member of the armed forces can re-cover under the Federal Tort Claims Act for non-service con-nected injuries caused by the negligent conduct of a governmentemployee. Brooks v. United States, 69 S.Ct. 918 (U.S. 1949).The Federal Tort Claims Act was enacted as Title IV ofthe Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. The purpose of thisact was "To provide for increased efficiency in the legislativebranch of the government." The title dealing with tort claimswas designed to promote efficiency in government by eliminatingthe many private bills introduced in Congess each year to author-ize the granting of relief for tortious acts of government em-ployees and agents. The act thus waived the sovereign im-munity of the United States from torts suits and even went sofar as to forbid the introduction of private bills authorizingclaims falling within the ambit of the act. 4 Jurisdiction is con-ferred on the United States district courts and liability is to betested "in accordance with the law of the place where the act oromission occurred."51. 60 Stat. 842 (1946), 28 U.S.C. § 921, now 28 U.S.C. § 2671(1948).2. 77 F. Supp. 706 (App. D.C. 1948).3. United States v. Brooks, 169 F.(2d) 840 (C.C.A. 4th, 1948).4. 60 Stat. 831, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, § 131.5. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, § 410(a) reads as follows:"Sec. 410. (a) Subject to the provisions of this title, the United Statesdistrict court for the district wherein the plaintiff is resident or whereinthe act or omission complained of occurred, Including the United Statesdistrict courts for the Territories and possessions of the United States, sit-ting without a jury, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear, determine,and render judgment on any claim against the United States, for moneyonly, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, on account of damage to orloss of property or on account of personal injury or death caused by thenegligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government[941NOTESIn Jefferson v. United States it was held that a soldier couldnot recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sus-tained as a result of the negligence of an army surgeon operatingin an army hospital. The United States Supreme Court distin-guished the Jefferson case and held that service connected in-juries to service personnel are exempt from the coverage of theact, but that non-service connected injuries are included withinits scope. The case turned not so much on technical points ofinterpretation as on the common sense notion that a soldier onfurlough is in a status not essentially different from that of acivilian. Mr. Justice Murphy, speaking for the court, stated:"But here we are dealing with an accident which had nothingto do with the Brooks' Army careers, injuries not caused bytheir service except in the sense that all human events dependupon what has already transpired. Were the accident incidentto the Brooks' service, a wholly different case would be pre-sented."6 Clearly the Supreme Court was not overruling theJefferson case but merely distinguishing it on its facts.The point was much labored in the Brooks case that thesoldier, upon enlistment, acquires a special and unique militarystatus and that he becomes the object of the government'sbenevolence in the form of low insurance rates and special andautomatic compensation for injury, incapacity, or death. Fromthis it was argued that because of these provisions the soldierwas already provided for (which supported other arguments ofstatutory interpretation), and thus to allow recovery under theTort Claims Act would require the government to compensateservicemen twice. Clearly this is not so, for, although holdingthe petitioner's actions to be well founded, the Court remandedthe cases to the court of appeals to consider reduction of thedamages pro tanto for any claims which might have been pre-viously paid for the same injuries under authorizations of law.JIMMYv M. STOKERwhile acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circum-stances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to theclaimant for such damage, loss, injury, or death in accordance with thelaw of the place where the act or omission occurred. Subject to the provi-sions of this title, the United States shall be liable in respect of such claimsto the same claimants, in the same manner, and to the same extent as aprivate individual under like circumstances. . .."(b) The judgment in such an action shall constitute a complete barto any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, againstthe employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to theclaim."6. 69 S.Ct. 918, 920 (U.S. 1949).1949]

Federal Tort Claims Act - Servicemen Not Excluded

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1650&context=lalrev

Federal Tort Claims Act - Servicemen Not Excluded

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center