Dilworth v. United States, 16577
| Decision Date | 21 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | 16578.,No. 16577,16577 |
| Parties | Frances P. DILWORTH, Administratrix of the Estate of Donald D. Dilworth, Jr. Deceased, and Judi D. Dilworth v. UNITED STATES of America. Frances P. Dilworth, Administratrix of the Estate of Donald D. Dilworth, Jr., Deceased, Appellant. Frances P. DILWORTH, Administratrix of the Estate of Donald D. Dilworth, Jr., Deceased, and Judi D. Dilworth v. UNITED STATES of America. Judi D. Dilworth, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Willard B. Knowlton, Tenafly, N. J., (John Herbert Tovey on the brief), for appellants.
Kenneth P. Zauber, Asst. U. S. Atty., David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before STALEY, Chief Judge and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs' decedent suffered a fatal illness while he was a private in the United States Army. They brought the instant action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq., alleging in their complaint that the decedent's death resulted from his negligent treatment at an Army hospital. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, with prejudice, on its view that it was precluded by Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950).
On this appeal the plaintiffs contend that Feres no longer has vitality in the light of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. We rejected the identical contention in Sheppard v. United States, 369 F.2d 272 (3 Cir. 1966), cert. den. 386 U.S. 982, 87 S.Ct. 1286, 18 L.Ed.2d 230 (1967), in affirming the District Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an action brought by the administrators of the estates of three United States Marines who had been killed in the crash of a United States Air Force plane while they were on active duty. In doing so we stated:
It is pertinent to note that two of the three suits decided in Feres charged malpractice on the part of military doctors in military hospitals.
It may also be noted that we recently gave effect to the Feres doctrine in Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72 (3 Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 923, 88 S.Ct. 247, 19 L.Ed.2d 274. We there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation
...v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 717 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct. 2406, 60 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1979); Dilworth v. United States, 387 F.2d 590, 591 (CA3 1967); Buckingham v. United States, 394 F.2d 483, 484 (CA4 1968). 8 See e. g., Thomason v. Sanchez, 539 F.2d 955 (CA3 1976); P......
-
Bowman v. Kaufman
... ... No. 61, Docket 29944 ... United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit ... Argued October 24, 1967 ... ...
-
Peluso v. United States, 72-1379.
...92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 64 (1971); Buckingham v. United States, 394 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1968) (per curiam); Dilworth v. United States, 387 F.2d 590 (3rd Cir.1967) (per curiam); Bailey v. DeQuevedo, 375 F.2d 72 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923, 88 S.Ct. 247, 19 L.Ed.2d 274 The rationale ......
-
Henning v. United States, 19088.
...Court in a 1963 decision, United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 159, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 10 L.Ed. 2d 805. Also, see Dilworth v. United States, 387 F.2d 590 (3 Cir. 1967); Bailey v. De Quevedo, 375 F.2d 72 (3 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923, 88 S.Ct. 247, 19 L.Ed.2d 274 (1967). The issue p......