Opinion ID: 484327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Impact of Litigation on the Military Disciplinary Structure

Text: 26 In addition to the incident to service analysis, we find additional justification for reversing the order of the district court because Pierce's claim poses no threat to the military disciplinary structure. See Shearer, 105 S.Ct. at 3043-44. As indicated, the single most important and defensible, rationale for the Feres doctrine is the potential adverse impact on military discipline and supervision if suits involving negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty were allowed. Johnson, 749 F.2d at 1533 (quoting Brown, 348 U.S. at 112, 75 S.Ct. at 143). Here, the alleged negligence is not of the sort that would harm the disciplinary system if litigated. As the Supreme Court has indicated, the negligence alleged in the operation of a vehicle ... [would not] require Army Officers 'to testify in court as to each other's decisions and actions.'  Shearer, 105 S.Ct. at 3044 (quoting Stencel, 431 U.S. at 673, 97 S.Ct. at 2059). The claims alleged would not involve second-guessing military orders, Stencel, 431 U.S. at 673, 97 S.Ct. at 2059, as the evidence offered to establish the alleged negligence would not call into question the management of the military, Shearer, 105 S.Ct. at 3043, challenge basic choices about the discipline, supervision, and control of the serviceman, Shearer, 105 S.Ct. at 3043, implicate any professional military judgments, Chappell, 462 U.S. at 302, 103 S.Ct. at 2366, or cast doubt upon any decision of command. Shearer, 105 S.Ct. at 3044. Thus, the litigation would not upset, via the civilian forum, the delicate relationships which must exist for the military system to properly function. Johnson, 749 F.2d at 1539.