Ritchie v. United States, No. 11-16535 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit alleging that officers in the Army caused his infant son's death by ordering his pregnant wife, a servicewoman on active duty, to perform physical training in contravention of her doctors' instructions, which ultimately induced premature labor. The district court held that the suit was barred by the Feres doctrine and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Feres doctrine immunizes the United States from liability for tort claims arising out of activities incident to military service. The court concluded that, under its own precedent, Feres barred plaintiff's wrongful death claim. The court employed the "genesis test," by asking whether the family member's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., claim had its genesis in injuries to members of the armed forces. In this case, the infant's injury derived from his mother's military service. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that genetic injuries differed from claims based upon injuries incurred in utero. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Feres Doctrine The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal under the Feres doctrine of a Federal Tort Claims Act wrongful death action brought against the United States. The plaintiff alleged that officers in the United States Army caused the death of his infant son by ordering his pregnant wife, a servicewoman on active duty, to perform physical training in contravention of her doctor’s instructions, which ultimately induced premature labor. The panel held that under the court’s own precedent, concerning claims by relatives of military personnel under the “genesis test,” the Feres doctrine barred plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. The panel also held that an “in utero” exception to Feres, employed by other circuits, did not apply. Judge Farris concurred in the result. Judge D.W. Nelson, joined by Judge Nguyen, concurred, and wrote separately to highlight the questionable validity of the Feres doctrine.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.