If I were a betting man, which I'm not, I would offer a nice proposition. This is it: I would bet you 1,000-1 -- make it 10,000-1 -- that the Supreme Court refuses to hear the pending appeals in Purcell v. U.S. and Kemp v. U.S..
All right, sucker, send your check in care of this column. Thank you very much. You were betting that the Supreme Court would abandon 55 years of bad precedent in cases involving men and women in military service. Forget it! The unfairness imposed upon them by what is known as the Feres doctrine will not be relieved.
To refresh your memory: Rudolph J. Feres, a first lieutenant in the Army, died in 1947 when fire razed an Army barracks in Pine Camp, N.Y. He left a young widow and a year-old son. The fire clearly was caused by the negligence of a maintenance crew. She sued the government for the kind of damages that would have been awarded instantly against a civilian defendant. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Supreme Court held in 1950 that his estate could not recover. His death was "incident to service." She and the child could live on his pension.
Thus was born the misbegotten Feres doctrine. In the ensuing years, scores of plaintiffs and dozens of commentators have denounced it. Hundreds of tort cases have been hopefully filed and promptly dismissed. In 1987 the high court came within one vote of reconsidering the rule. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a powerful dissenting opinion urging that the precedent be abandoned. Sad to say, it hangs on like a summer cold.
Now it is hitting the family of the late Jeremy Ross Purcell. Five years ago this week he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. Eventually he wound up at Camp Pendleton, Calif. In August 2002 his platoon was ordered to participate in a live-fire exercise with 5.56mm ammunition. At nightfall a Marine sergeant took charge of the unexpended rounds.
The exercise resumed the following morning. This time the Marines were ordered to use blanks. Somehow the sergeant erred. He brought two prepared magazines. One held blank ammunition. The other was left over from the day before. Jeremy was killed. Accidents happen.
Jeremy's father subsequently sued for damages based upon the sergeant's negligence. He concedes that if his son's death had occurred during actual combat, he would have no suit. This death came during a routine training exercise. It resulted from indefensible negligence. No matter. The Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit routinely cited the Feres doctrine. Will the Supreme Court hear his appeal? Don't bet the ranch.
Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" | Katie Pavlich