equally, thereby affirming the district court’s ruling by operation of law. See Elliott v. U.S., 37 F.3d 617 (11th Cir.1994) (in banc). 6 . See Paul C. Weiler, Workers’ Compensation and Product Liability: The Interaction of a Tort and a Non-Tort Regime, 50. Ohio St.L.J. 825, 852 (1989) ("|T|he long-standing presence of exclusivity in [workers’ compensation] had a persuasive influence on the U.S. Supreme Court when, in Feres v. United States, the Court developed a comparable immunity doctrine for the United States government which immunized tire government from any liability for ‘injuries to servicemen when the injuries arise out of or in the course of activity incident to [military] service.’ "); Cf. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 432, 72 S.Ct. 849, 853, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (1952) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Of course, even if Congress insisted, the
holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act  of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding that plaintiff could recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act because the profits awarded under the federal trademark statute constitute compensation rather than a penalty while statutory damages are awarded under the copyright act are designed to serve a variety of purposes other than compensation including deterrence and punishment holding that an injured civilian crew member of a public vessel was not permitted relief under the public vessels act but rather was eligible for compensation under the federal employees compensation act it is the duty of this court to attempt to fit the public vessels act as intelligently and fairly as possible into the entire statutory system of remedies against the government available to seamen for personal injuries 