FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16541

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 05 -C V -A A A -2 C A R L I S S T A R K E , a s gua r di a n f

orR e gi na l d S t a rke , a n i nc apa c i t a t e d a d u lt, P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 2, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P la in tif f - ap p e lla n t, C a r lis S ta rk e , a s g u a r d ia n f o rh e rh u s b a n d , R e g in a ld2

S t a rke , appe a l s the di s m i s s a l by the di s tr i c tc our tof c l a i m s br oughtpur s ua ntt o the F eder al T ortC l ai m s A ct(F T C A ), 28 U . S . C . § 1 34 6(b). C ar l i s S t arke ar gu es that th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in f in d in g th o s e c la im s w e r e b a rr e d b y th e F e r e s d o c tr in e . W e a g r e e w i th th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtth a tth e c l a i ms a r e b a rr e d a n d a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 1 1 A ug ust20 03 , R egi nal d S t arke w as on ac t i ve du ty f or the U ni t ed S t a t e s Na v y . He wa s s t a t i o n e d a tKi n g s B a y Na v a l S u b m a r i n e B a s e . He c o m p le te d h is a s s ig n e d d u tie s f o rth e d a y a n d r e tu rn e d to h is o f f - b a s e h o u s in g in th e m id - a f

te rn o o n . T h a t s a m e a f

te rn o o n , h e d e c id e d to r e tu rn to th e b a s e w ith s o m e f r ie n d s to p la y g o lf

a t th e K in g s B a y T r id e n t L a k e s G o lf C o u r s e . A tthe t i m e , the c our s e , w hi c h w a s ow ne d a nd ope r a t e d by the N a vy w i th the a s s is ta n c e o f

c iv ilia n c o n tr a c to r s , w a s o p e n o n ly to m ilita ry p e r s o n n e l a n d th e ir gue s t s . L a t e tha ta f

t e rnoon, R e gi na l d S t a rke w a s s truc k by l i ghtni ng w hi l e pl a y i ng on the course. T he S t arkes’ com pl ai ntal l eges thatthe go l f c ou rs e per sonn el negl i gent l y f

ai l ed t o sou nd the i ncl em entw ea ther a l arm , and that , had such an a la rm b e e n s o u n d e d , R e g in a ld S ta rk e w o u ld h a v e ta k e n p r e c au tio n a ry m e a s u r e s to a voi d i nj ury . I ns t e a d, he w a s t ot a l l y i nc apa c i t a t e d by al i ghtni ng s tr i ke a nd re m ai ns i n a se m i -c om at ose or c om at ose s t at e. C ar l i s S t arke fi l ed cl ai m s r el at ed t o h i s i nj ury on b ehal f of e ac h o f them3

pur s ua ntt o the F T C A . T he gove rnm e ntf i l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl a c k of s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt, ap p ly in g th e F e r e s d o c tr in e , f o u n d th a t b e c au s e R e g in a ld S t arke’ s i nj ury had occurre d i nci dentt o h i s m i l i t ary s ervi ce , the courtl ac ked s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n o v e rth o s e c la im s . I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of cl ai m s f or l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 1) de novo. M e xi por t , I nc . v. F r o n tie rC o m m c ’n s S e rv s ., I n c ., 2 5 3 F .3 d 5 7 3 , 5 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) .

“ [T ] he G ov ernm enti s notl i abl e und erthe [F T C A ] for i nj uri es t o servi ce m en w here the i nj uri es ar i se ou tof or ar e i n the course of ac t i vi ty i nci dentt o servi ce . ” F er es v. U ni t ed S t at es , 34 0 U . S . 13 5, 14 6, 71 S . C t . 15 3, 15 9 (19 50 ). W e c on si der three fa ct ors, “ (1) duty s t atus, (2) l ocat i on , and (3) act i vi ty, t o d et erm i ne w hether a s e rv ic e m e m b e r ’s in

ju r ie s r e s u ltin g f

r o m g o v e rn m e n t n e g lig e n c e . . . a r e in c id e n t to se rvi ce [, ] ” and thu s s ubj ec tt o the do ctri ne anno un ce d i n F er es . W hi t l eyv. U ni t ed S t at es , 17 0 F . 3d 10 61 , 10 70 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). F orthe purpos e of

F e r e s doc tr i ne a na l y s i s , w e ha ve dr a w n adi s t i nc t i on be tw e e n s e rvi c e m e m be r s on f ur l ough, w hos e F T C A c l a i m s w oul d l e s s l i ke l y be b arred , an d th o se o n “ o ff-d u ty t i m e ex p eri en ced d ai l y” i n th e co u rse o f act i v e d u ty,4

w h o s e n e g lig e n c e c la im s a r e p r e c lu d e d b y F e r e s . I d . a t 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 1 & n n .1 9 - 2 0 . A l tho ug h S t arke w as off- du ty a tthe t i m e of hi s i nj ury, hi s s t atus w as st i l l thatof an act i v e d u ty serv i ce m em b er fo r p u rp o ses o f F eres an al ysi s.

“ W here the cl ai m anti s i nj ured on base w hi l e on ‘ ac t i ve du ty, ’ F er es appl i es vi r tua l l y a s am a tt e rof

l a w . ” W a tki ns v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 462 F . S upp. 980, 986- 87 (D . C . G a. , 19 77 ), af

f’ d b y, W atki ns v. U ni t ed S t at es , 58 7 F . 2d 27 9, 27 9 (5th C i r. 19 79 ) ( expres sl y a do pt i ng di stri ctcourt ’ s r ea soni ng ). “ [E ] ven p l ai nt i ff s w ho w er e of f - duty ( w i th orw i thoutapa s s orl i be r ty c a r d) a r e ba rr e d by F e r e s w he r e the i n j u ry o ccu rs o n b ase. ” Id . at9 8 7 . S t ark e’ s i n j u ry o ccu rred ata g o l f co u rse l oc a t e d on the ba s e . T hus , the l oc a t i on a tw hi c h S t a rke ’ s i nj ury oc c urr e d c a l l s f or th e ap p lic a tio n o f

F e r e s . F i na l l y , a c t i vi t i e s on am i l i t a ry r e s e rva t i on of t e n i nvol ve pr i vi l e ge s or se rvi ce s thatac crue t o servi ce m em bers “ i nci dentt o thei r m i l i t ary s ervi ce . ” W hi t l ey , 17 0 F . 3d at10 73 -74, 10 74 n. 29 (r ec re at i on al ac t i vi t i es ); R i cks v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 842 F . 2d 300, 301 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( m e di c a l s e rvi c e s ) . I n thi s c a s e , not onl y w a s the gol f

c our s e l oc a t e d on the ba s e but , a tthe t i m e of S t a rke ’ s i nj ury , the f a c i l i ty w a s r e s tr i c t e d t o m i l i t a ry pe r s onne l a nd the i rgue s t s . A c c or di ngl y , he p la y e d o n th e c o u r s e o n ly b y v irtu e o f h is m ilita ry s e rv ic e . T h u s , S ta rk e ’s a c tiv ity w as cl earl y i nci dentt o h i s s ervi ce .5

T he ci rc um st ance s of R egi nal d S t arke’ s i nj ury s at i sf y a l l three fa ct ors r e q u i r e d f

o rth e ap p l i c a t i o n o f

th e Fe r e s d o c tr i n e . A c c o r d i n g l y , th e St a rk e s ’ FTCA c l a i m s a r e ba rr e d. I I I . CONCL US I ON C ar li s S tark e a p p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f h eran d h erh u sb an d ’s F T C A cl ai m s ari si ng ou tof her husband ’ s i ncapaci t at i ng i nj ury on a U ni t ed S t at es N a vy - ow ne d gol f

c our s e . B e c aus e w e f

i nd tha tthe F e r e s doc tr i ne appl i e s , ba rr i ng these cl ai m s, w e AF F I RM th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r .