Legal Document

337 U.S. 49 69 Supreme Court Reporter 918 93 L.Ed. 1200 BROOKSv.UNITED STATES (two cases). Nos. 388 and 389. Argued March 2, 1949. Decided May 16, Mr. W. S. Blakeney, of Charlotte, N.C., for petitioners. Paul Atlantic Sweeney, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is a suit against United States under Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 Code KF62 § 921, 60 Statutes-at-Large 842, now 26 1, Annotated KF65 U5 2671. The question whether members armed forces can recover that Act injuries not incident to their service. District Western North Carolina entered judgment Government, rendering an unreported opinion, but Appeals Fourth Circuit reversed, in divided decision. 169 Reporter, 2nd Series 840. We brought case here on certiorari because its importance as interpretation Act. 2 facts are these. Welker Brooks, Arthur father, James were riding automobile along public highway dark, rainy night February, 1945. was driving. He came full stop before entering intersection, proceeded across nearer lane intersecting road. Seconds later car struck from left by Army truck, driven civilian employee Army. Brooks killed; his father badly injured. 3 administrator Arthur's estate actions Judge tried causes without jury found negligence part truck driver. Government moved dismiss ground deceased brother at time accident, therefore barred recovery. denied motion, $25,425 decedent's estate, $4,000 Welker.1 On appeal, however, Government's argument persuaded reverse judgment, Parker dissenting. 4 agree with Parker. statute's terms clear. They provide jurisdiction over any claim founded States. 'any claim' means servicemen.' statute doen contain twelve exceptions. 421 (now 2680). None exclude petitioners' claims. One claims arising foreign country. A second excludes out combatant activities military or naval forces, Coast Guard, during war. These other exceptions too lengthy, specific, close present problem take away judgments. Without resorting automatic maxim construction, such make it clear us Congress knew what about when used term claim.' It would be absurd believe did have servicemen mind 1946, this passed. overseas plain. 5 More than language framework act support view. There eighteen tort bills introduced between 1925 1935.2 All two3 contained denying recovery forces. When first introduced, exception concerning had been dropped.4 What remained previous exclusion all which compensation provided World War Veterans' 1924, 43 607, 38 421, et seq., seq. injury death occurring War. H.R. 181, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 181 incorporated into Legislative Reorganization last vestige disappeared. See also Note, Syracuse L.Rev. 87, 93-94. 6 envisages dire consequences should we judgment.5 battle commander's poor army surgeon's slip hand, defective jeep injury, But dealing accident nothing do Brooks' careers, caused service except sense human events depend upon has already transpired. Were service, wholly different presented. express no it, may note only context Dobson versus States, Cir., 27 807; Bradey 151 742, Jefferson 77 F.Supp. 706, relevance. similar distinction 31 223b, 223b. Interpretation same words vary, course, consequences, those insight determination congressional purpose. Lawson Suwanee Fruit & Steamship Co., 336 198, 503. fears point reflecting purpose leave where they were, despite literal considerations contrary. result so outlandish even factors mentioned permit us. 7 Provisions statutes disability payments servicemen, gratuity survivors, 701, indicate forbid Acts. Unlike usual workman's statute, e.g., 33 905, there veterans' laws provides exclusiveness remedy. Standard Oil 332 301, 67 1604, 91 2067, indicates that, far third party liability concerned. Nor election remedies, Employees' Compensation 757, 757. Thus, Dahn Davis, 258 42 320, 66 696, cases following decision, point. Compare Parr 10 172 462. will call either remedy exclusive, nor pronounce doctrine done so. 224b, specifically repealed 424(a). In very construing, three instances, §§ 403(d), 410(b), 423 1346, 2672, 2679), omitted provision govern case. 8 does mean amount payable servicemen's benefit deducted, taken consideration, serviceman obtains Court, discussion matter Appeals, see indication meant pay twice injury. Certain elements damages t e equivalent account providing payments. seem incongruous, glance, if hospital expenses paid, example. And whatever legal theory behind wrongful action, might apply payment although national life insurance considered separate transaction, unrelated action benefits. 9 statutory scheme Administration regulations dictate contrary result. argued Appeals. court below appear passed it; unnecessary, view took know record objected portion judgment—nor tell consider general objection sufficient allow problem. Finally, sure how much deducting did. obvious position pass benefits case's posture. conclude language, legislative history require holding well founded. remand consideration reducing pro tanto, decide proper parties' allegations error. 11 Reversed remanded. 12 FRANKFURTER DOUGLAS dissent, substantially reasons set forth Dobie, below, recovered own right. contest 12178, 68th 2d Sess.; 12179, 1912, 69th 6716, 8914, 9285, 70th 4377, 71st 15428, 3d 16429, 17168, d 5065, 72d 211, 4567, 1833, 73d 129, 8561, 2028, 74th 1043, Other after above, exception. See, 5373, 77th 1356, 78th 'congressional awareness' decisions, infra. contains covered cases. 421(d) arguments phase sleeveless. discussed.

Classification Label: 7