3 Squaddies suing US DoD

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MikeMcc, Dec 13, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Anyone who has worked near the Yanks should be grateful not to have been bombed, shot or nuked! But the doris sounds just like most of them in the mob do, so how has her personality changed? :twisted:
     
  2. These three plaintiffs could be in for tough sledding.

    A court-made exception to the US Federal Tort Claims Act, Feres v United States, declares that an American serviceman has no litigation remedy against the USA for negligently inflicted bodily injury he sustained while in the military. Seems kind of raw to me, but that's how it is.

    I'd be astonished if foreign soldiers of an allied force, in a combat theater, got any more favorable treatment in court.

    ***

    This observation is not intended as legal advice. Similarly situated persons are encouraged to seek professional assistance.
     
  3. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    It's ok NWD, The Glorious Leader will tell GW that unless these sldrs get justice he will not allow any more Brit troops to support the septics......

    :roll:

    ......and when I woke up, my coffee was cold !
     
  4. But these are Brits NWD. Might be interesting to see how far it goes. I wish them luck.
     
  5. This may be slightly off topic but I read the BBC article. At the bottom of the page the following statement
    LINKS TO MORE ENGLAND STORIES

    What the F*** is an England Story? Even the BBC can note that one of the injured is a Scot.

    Rant over
     
  6. Similarly this is not intended as legal advice, but I see that part of the rationale of the Feres case (1950) was that a 'comprehensive and generous' system of welfare benefits was in force for service people and their dependants without any need for litigation. These British claimants enjoy no such benefits from the United States. It might, however, be argued that having been injured in the course of allied service they should look to their own nation for compensation in whatever form.

    ISTR that the United States has already in recent years awarded compensation on occasion, eg for friendly fire cases, but if so I suspect such compensation was awarded administratively without pursuing litigation to its conclusion. That may of course be the ultimate result of the present case.