Document: 473 U.S. 52 105 S.Ct. 3039 87 L.Ed.2d 38 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Louise SHEARER, Individually, and as Administratrix For the Estate of Vernon Shearer, Deceased. No. 84-194. Argued Feb. 25, 1985. Decided June 27, Syllabus Respondent's decedent, her son who was an Army private, off duty at Fort Bliss away from base when he kidnaped murdered by another serviceman, convicted murder in a New Mexico court had also been German manslaughter 1977 while assigned to Germany. Respondent brought this action against Government Federal District Court under Tort Claims Act (Act), claiming that Army's negligence caused son's death. alleged that, although knew other serviceman dangerous, it "negligently carelessly failed exert reasonably sufficient control over" him, "failed warn persons large, [and] negligently . remove [him] active military duty." The granted summary judgment for Government, but Appeals reversed, concluding, inter alia, Feres v. United States, 340 135, 71 153, 95 L.Ed. 152—which held soldier may not recover injuries "arise out or are course activity incident service," id., 146, S.Ct., 159—did bar respondent's suit. Held: Recovery is barred doctrine, which based, on special relationship his superiors, effects maintenance suits discipline, extreme results might obtain if such were allowed negligent orders given acts committed duty. erroneously placed great weight fact murdered; situs nearly important whether suit requires civilian second-guess decisions, impair essential discipline. complaint strikes core these concerns; allegations go directly "management" military, calling into question basic choices about supervision, serviceman. To permit type would mean commanding officers have stand prepared convince wisdom wide range disciplinary decisions. Nor doctrine rendered inapplicable focusing only case with claim negligence, characterizing challenge "straightforward personnel decision." By whatever name called, decision command. Pp. 57-59. 723 F.2d 1102 (CA3 1983), reversed. Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D.C., petitioner. William T. Cannon, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court, except Part II-A. 1 We certiorari decide survivor failing prevent murder. 2 * mother administratrix Private Shearer. While Shearer base, Andrew Heard. A Heard Shearer's sentenced him term 15 55 years' imprisonment. 3 Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) 2671 et seq., Heard, Germany 1977, 4-year prison term. Upon discharge confinement Germany, transferred Bliss. large." App. 14. 4 States Eastern Pennsylvania favor Government. 1983). 152 (1950), did because "[g]enerally off-duty engaged time injury, can FTCA." F.2d, 1106. precluded intentional tort exception § 2680(h). noted reasoned "if assault battery occurred 'natural result' government's failure exercise due care, be deemed its roots therefore within scope Id., 1107.1 5 certiorari. 469 929, 321, 83 259 (1984). reverse. II A. 6 Act's waiver sovereign immunity does apply "[a]ny arising [or] battery," 2680(h), clear arises No semantical recasting events alter immediate cause death and, consequently, basis claim. 7 cannot avoid reach 2680(h) framing terms battery. Section merely claims battery; sweeping language excludes any read provision cover like sound stem employee. Thus "the express words statute" Spelar, 338 217, 219, 70 10, 11, 94 (1949). 8 legislative history sparse, entirely consistent our interpretation. There no indication Congress distinguished between "negligent supervision" respondeat superior claims, latter excluded Act. Instead appears believed certain factual situation—deliberate attacks employees. example, advised Department "where some agent gets fight fellow [a]nd socks him." Claims: Hearings H.R. 5373 6463 before House Committee Judiciary, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1942). 9 It passed straightforward assurance financially responsible assaults batteries See Against States: 2690 Subcommittee Senate 76th 3d 39 (1940). one suggested liability attach supervise assailant. 10 This understanding reconfirmed 1974 amended waive torts law enforcement officers. Pub.L. 93-253, 2, 88 Stat. 50. premise legislation unamended "protect[ed] agents commit[ted] battery." S.Rep. 93-588, p. (1973), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, pp. 2789, 2791. Once again, hint thought Government's turned adequacy supervision warnings.2 11 Court's interpretation parallel exceptions 2680 supports decision. In Neustadt, 366 696, 81 1294, 614 (1961), "arising misrepresentation" covers cases underlies inaccurate representation. And Kosak 465 848, 104 1519, 79 860 (1984), we respect detention goods merchandise officer customs" includes handling. Because viewed same light issue here, see, e.g., H.R.Rep. 1287, 79th 1st (1945), inescapable phrase battery" broad enough encompass sounding negligence. 12 Today's result inconsistent line holding liable non-employee supervision. See, Panella 216 622 (CA2 1954) (Harlan, J.). enacting Congress' focus extent actions generally Panella, supra, 626. Thus, referring least intended exclude B 13 Our service." 159. Although based several grounds, 14 "[i]n last analysis, seems best explained 'peculiar duty.' " Muniz, 374 150, 162 [83 1850, 1858, 805] (1963), quoting Brown, 348 110, 112 [75 141, 143, 99 139] (1954). reduced few bright-line rules; each must examined statute has construed subsequent cases. Here, murdered. But see Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. 431 666, 673, 97 2054, 2058, 665 (1977), Chappell Wallace, 462 296, 300, 304, 103 2362, 2365, 2367, 76 586 (1983). 16 concerns.3 particular, respondent alleges superiors over allegation goes military; calls serviceman.4 17 quite different Brooks 337 49, 69 918, 93 1200 (1949), where recovery driver truck. Unlike operation vehicle, here require "to testify other's decisions actions." U.S., 2059. decisions; overlook particular episode, how place restraints soldier's off-base conduct. 'complex, subtle, professional composition, training, force essentially judgments.' 302, 2366, Gilligan Morgan, 413 1, 2440, 2446, 37 407 (1973). 18 Finally, escape net Tr. Oral Arg. 37. plaintiffs contest policy; nevertheless, their fall they permitted, involve judiciary sensitive affairs expense discipline effectiveness. Similarly, attempt hale officials account fail. III 19 Special Assistant Attorney General Holtzoff, testifying behalf General, described proposed "a radical innovation" thus counseled "take step step." 7236 22 hold undertaken allow representative serviceman's Accordingly, 20 Reversed. 21 POWELL took part case. BRENNAN, whom BLACKMUN STEVENS join, concurring judgment. 23 I do join II-A THE CHIEF JUSTICE's opinion. do, however, II-B concur 24 MARSHALL, 25 am firm supporter support Judge Garth dissented ground true even though reason believe "several incidents" "abusive, illegal unconstitutional 'no-knock' raids" federal narcotics inadequate immaterial serviceman; indeed, itself executrix. 136-137, 154-155, (1950). longer controlling, factors mentioned present here. anomalous servicemen depend local various states, 157, 159; record shows dependents entitled statutory veterans' benefits. 144-145, 158-159.

Category: 7