Scott A. Taber v. Robert S. Maine, and United States of America

67 F.3d 1029 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995

Facts

On April 13, 1985, Robert S. Maine, a Navy serviceman on active duty in Guam, went on liberty after a 24-hour shift. He spent the day drinking beer at an on-base beach party, in his barracks, and cocktails at the enlisted men's club, appearing drunk by 11:00 p.m. Around 11:30 p.m., Maine drove off base to get food, but while returning, he crashed into a car occupied by Scott A. Taber. Taber, an enlisted Seabee also stationed in Guam and on liberty, was driving with a civilian friend to her off-base house after having dinner at a nearby U.S. Naval Station. Taber was severely injured in the collision.

Issue

1. Whether the United States Government is vicariously liable for the negligent driving of serviceman Robert S. Maine under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 2. Whether the Feres doctrine bars Scott A. Taber's claim against the government for his injuries.

Holding

The court held that the government is vicariously liable for Maine's conduct under the law of Guam, which follows California's expansive respondeat superior doctrine. The court further held that the Feres doctrine does not bar Taber's claim. The district court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Rule

Under Guam law, which looks to California law for guidance, respondeat superior holds an employer vicariously liable for an employee's acts if the risk is "fairly regarded as typical of or broadly incidental" to the employer's enterprise. This includes social or recreational pursuits on employer premises after hours if customary or endorsed, or if the employee's activities cause them to become an instrumentality of danger. The Feres doctrine bars servicemember claims under the FTCA for injuries that "arise out of or in the course of activity incident to service," which is determined by asking if the plaintiff was engaged in activities within the scope of their military employment, analogous to workers' compensation. If not, Feres generally does not apply, absent unusual circumstances involving military discipline.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.