Brooks v. United States - 337 U.S. 49, 69 S. Ct. 918 (1949)

Rule:

The terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2674, are clear. They provide for federal district court jurisdiction over any claim founded on negligence brought against the United States. "Any claim" does not mean "any claim but that of servicemen." It would be absurd to believe that Congress did not have the servicemen in mind in 1946, when the statute was passed. The overseas and combatant activities exceptions make this plain.

Facts:

Welker Brooks, Arthur Brooks, and their father, James Brooks, were riding in their automobile along a public highway in North Carolina on a dark, rainy night in February, 1945. Arthur was driving. He came to a full stop before entering an intersection, and proceeded across the nearer lane of the intersecting road. Seconds later the car was struck from the left by a United States Army truck, driven by a civilian employee of the Army. Arthur Brooks was killed; Welker and his father were badly injured. Welker and the administrator of Arthur's estate brought actions against the United States in the District Court. The District Judge tried the causes without a jury and found negligence on the part of the truck driver. The Government moved to dismiss on the ground that Welker and his deceased brother were in the armed forces of the United States at the time of the accident, and were therefore barred from recovery. The Court denied the motion, entered a $ 25,425 judgment for the decedent's estate, and a $ 4,000 judgment for Welker. On appeal, however, the Government's argument persuaded the Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment

Issue:

Were the servicemen entitled to damages?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Court agreed with the district court that the servicemen were entitled to damages. The FTCA provided for district court jurisdiction over any claim founded on negligence brought against the United States. It did not exclude claims of servicemen. Further, none of the statute's 12 exceptions under § 421 excluded the servicemen's claims. The Court held that the language, framework and legislative history of the FTCA required a holding that the servicemen's actions were well founded.