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

Heading: Activity of the Serviceman

Text: 21 In this case, Pierce was driving a civilian vehicle off the base in a highly congested area. He had eaten lunch at a fast food restaurant, visited a pawn shop, and was returning to the base to unpack his personal belongings. The government alleges that these activities are proximately related to military duties because they are part of the life of a soldier. We disagree. 22 Pierce, similar to the claimant in Parker, was not directly subject to military control; he was not under the compulsion of military orders; he was not performing any military mission. Parker, 611 F.2d at 1014. We do not view pawning a camera, eating lunch, operating a motor vehicle, or unpacking personal property when relieved of assigned tasks as activity materially related to military service. 23 As the court in Parker acknowledged, [i]n some cosmic sense 'all human events depend upon what has already transpired.'  Parker, 611 F.2d at 1011 (quoting Brooks, 337 U.S. at 52, 69 S.Ct. at 920). Servicemen have to live somewhere. The mere fact that he was stationed at Fort Stewart does not mean that everything Pierce did in connection with his personal life can legitimately be considered activity proximately related to military service. To accept the government's contention would be to construe any conceivable personal activity as incident to service because that activity happened to be performed by a member of the armed forces. We refuse to accept such a construction, for to do so would preclude the class of servicemen from bringing an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act merely by virtue of the fact that the claimants are wearing a United States uniform. 24 Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the district court erred in ruling that Pierce's injuries were incurred from activities incident to service. Pierce was on pass, the accident occurred off the base, and the activities involved were not proximately related to military service. Thus, the district court erroneously concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Pierce's claims. 25