Hide Article Text (OCR)
yearsofinjusticeJames J . KilpatrickSYNDICATED C O L U MN I S Tn a day in June, 1995, Pvt. CharlesRichards left his base early at Fort Knox, Ky. Driving his own car, he aded for home. He never got there.In a petition now before the Supreme )Uit, we leam that Richards was off duty r the day and was driving home in his vn car to care for his wife, Shammara. ne was then three months pregnant with their second child. At the intersection of Kentucky Highway 1638 and U.S. Route 31, a five-ton Army uuck ran a red light and broadsided Richards' car. He died on the spot. He was 21 years old.In March 1997 his widow brought adeath suit aeainst theed that the government is not liable under the act for injuries to service personnel “where the injuries arise out of or are inCoverinc TheCourtsthe course of activ ity incident to serv ice.” Act. In 1949 the Supreme Court affirmed:In the Richards case now pending in the“We are dealing with an accidentSupreme Court, the w idow and children of which had nothing to do w ith the Brooks'Pvt. Richards plea for reconsideration of Army careers, with injuries not causedthe phrase, “incident to service.” The acci- by their serv ice. ... Were the accidentdent in Kentucky, tragic as it was, had incident to the Brooks' service, a whollynothing whatever to do w ith Richards as a different case would be presented.serviceman. His death was not the conse- The follow ing year brought the Feres quence of any command decision. Military opinion, and the Brooks case sank out ofdiscipline did not figure in this case at all. This was a sadly routine accident for which the Army was solely responsible.When off-duty personnel areFourjudges of the 3rd Circuit, speaking killed Gf injuredthrough Judge Maijorie O. Rendell, filed off-basean impassioned dissent. The Richards case. Silt WHOM 10 they said, “represents yet another com- accidents, it is Scalia asserted insight. Since then, the Feres doctrine has drawn harsh criticism from every quarter. Justice Antonintrucklad judge-made precedent that works a pelling argument few abandonment of the absurd to rulefective front brakes, an inoperable horn, shameful injustice upon men and women Fetes doctrine.” They urged the Supreme that the harmThelicensedthe civilian world, theseand damaged tail in the armed services. The doctrine dates Court to overrule it. The governmentx was not from December 1950, when the Supreme should accept accountability for injurieshat class. Court ruled that the w idow of 1 st Lt. resulting from essentially civilian activi-allegations Rudolph J. Feres could not recover dam- ties w holly unrelated to military serv ice.”1987 that Feres “was wronglywas “incident” decided and hearti-tO their service. deserves the- w idespread, almostuniversal criticismwould justify a civil trial. If proved, her ages under the Federal Tort Claims ActThis makes sense to me. At one time it it has received.” When ofi-duty personnelCharges would justify a substantial v erdict, for her husband's death in a barracks fire, made sense to the high court. In 1945, Welker are killed or injured in off-base automobileBut because Richards w as serv ing his coun- She charged that the fire was the conse- and Arthur Brooks, and their father, were rid- accidents, it seems to me absurd to rule thattv at the time of his death. the U.S. District quence of the government’s negligence ing in their automobile on a public highway the harm was “incident” to their serv ice.Court dismissed her suit out of hand. The in failing to maintain the heating system, in North Carolina. The brothers were in theourt of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit i intlv affirmed. Now the Inch courtJustice Robert Jackson conceded that Army, but they were off duty. Their car col-The phrase cries out for redefinition. The Federal Tort Claims Act wasif it in civ ilian life “a landlord would undoubt- lided w ith an Army truck driven by a civ ilian intended to make the government liablexises, has a fresh opportunity to recon- edly be held liable if an injury occurred to driver. Arthur was killed in the accident; for its negligence in the same mannerjider a legal precedent that has been fc, denounced for nearly 50 yearsa tenant as a result of a negligently main- Welker and his father were badly injured, and to the same extent as a private indi-tained heating plant.” Military life is dif- The District Court ruled that the Brooks fam- vidual under like circumstances.” Tell itYes, I am back to the Feres doctrine, a ferent. Without dissent, the court conclud- ily could sue under the Federal Tort Claims to Shammara and the children!■—i——w—mm-i iimuni
Newspaper Details
Panama City News Herald
Panama City, Florida, US
Sat, Jan 15, 2000
Page 10
Full Page
Clipped by
Hayner P.
IL, USA 23 Oct 2019
Other Publications Near Panama City, Florida
Panama City Pilot
Panama City News Herald Sunday
Panama City News Herald
Panama News Herald
Panama City News
