## Facts

- Army Private Vernon Shearer was off duty and away from his base when he was kidnapped and murdered by another servicemember, Private Heard.
- Heard had previously been convicted of manslaughter by a German court while assigned to an Army base overseas.
- Shearer’s mother sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the Army negligently failed to control and supervise Heard, failed to warn others he was dangerous, and failed to remove him from active duty.
- The district court entered summary judgment for the United States under the Feres doctrine.
- The court of appeals reversed, reasoning the injury was not “incident to service” because it occurred off base while Shearer was off duty.

## Issues

1. Whether the Feres doctrine bars an FTCA wrongful-death claim by a servicemember’s estate where the injury occurred off base and off duty.
2. Whether allegations that the Army negligently failed to supervise, control, warn about, or discharge a dangerous servicemember require judicial review of military command decisions that Feres precludes.
3. Whether the FTCA’s intentional-tort exception independently bars a claim where the immediate harm was an intentional killing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the United States.
- A plurality concluded the suit was barred by Feres because it would require a civilian court to second-guess military judgments concerning discipline, supervision, and personnel management, with a risk to military discipline.
- The Court rejected reliance on the location or duty status at the time of injury as controlling; the decisive inquiry was the nature of the claim and its effect on military command functions.
- A concurrence agreed the judgment should be for the United States, emphasizing the FTCA’s intentional-tort exception while also recognizing Feres as supporting dismissal on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Under Feres, the FTCA does not permit suits by servicemembers (or their estates) for injuries that arise out of or occur in the course of activity “incident to service.”
- In applying Feres, the situs of the injury (on base/off base; on duty/off duty) is not determinative; the central question is whether adjudication would require review of military command decisions and risk impairment of military discipline.
- Claims framed as negligent supervision, control, warning, retention, or discharge can be barred where they challenge core decisions of command about managing servicemembers.
- The FTCA’s intentional-tort exception may also bar claims predicated on intentional assaults, even when pleaded as negligence, depending on how the claim is characterized.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an FTCA claim arising from a servicemember’s off-base, off-duty murder by another servicemember was barred because litigating the alleged negligence would intrude into military discipline and personnel decisions protected from civilian judicial review under the Feres doctrine.


United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52 (1985)