Law Commons^™

Feres: The “Double-Edged Sword”, Kaitlan Price

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In Feres v. United States, the Supreme Court barred service members from suing the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if the injuries occurred “incident to military service.” In establishing this doctrine, the Court discussed the necessity of protecting the military from lawsuits to ensure effective decision-making by military leaders.

Scholars have harshly criticized Feres in the modern era, arguing Feres must be overturned to provide service members with a greater opportunity for recovery. Specifically, many scholars admonish Feres because the Supreme Court failed to provide a clear definition of “incident to military service.” Lacking a clear definition …

A Malpractice-Based Duty To Disclose The Risk Of Stillbirth: A Response To Lens, Nadia N. Sawicki

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In Medical Paternalism, Stillbirth, & Blindsided Mothers, Lens argues that physicians who fail to disclose the risk of stillbirth to pregnant patients should be liable under the doctrine of informed consent. In this Response, I suggest that courts might be hesitant to expand informed consent in the way Lens proposes. Instead, I offer an alternative avenue for imposing liability, via traditional theories of medical malpractice.

Jewish Law And The Concept Of Negligence, Steven F. Friedell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.