Appeals Court Re-Affirms Federal Government Immunity in Negligence Case
An issue I have discussed periodically on these pages involves the federal government’s liability in injury and wrongful death cases. Federal law applies to negligence claims against the federal government, and many of these cases are governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. You can read more about this from a post I authored a few years ago here.
The Federal Tort Claims Act has a fascinating history behind that, but we’ll leave that for another day. Today, we discuss a case that was decided last month by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Lam v. United States.
During Fourth of July weekend in 2014, Phong Lam visited the Lake Mendocino recreation area. While he was sleeping in his tent, a 60 foot oak tree collapsed and fell on his tent, crushing his foot. Lam sued the United States and the Army Corps of Engineers, who maintained the recreation area. He claimed the Corps was negligent in not spotting and removing the oak tree, which had exhibited signs and symptoms of decaying and should have been removed. The trial court dismissed the case, agreeing with the government that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “discretionary function” exception applied to afford immunity from this lawsuit. Lam appealed.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court. The Court noted that when the government claims that the discretionary function exception applies, the government has the burden to prove it. If the government employee acted with discretion in doing or not doing something, the exception applies to prevent judicial second-guessing of administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort. (U.S. v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 814) In other words, if a government agency has a policy in place that allows employees of that agency to make independent policy judgments, the discretionary function exception applies and the government is immune from the lawsuit. If the agency policy does not allow for the employee to make these types of judgments, the exception is not applicable, and the case may proceed.
In Lam’s case, the government presented evidence that maintenance workers at Lake Mendocino were given wide latitude in deciding which trees to cut and prune. The Operational Management Plan had no criteria or mandates for identifying and removing hazardous trees. This was up to the employees’ discretion; therefore the discretionary function exception applied to shield the federal government from Lam’s case.
The court’s ruling here relied on another recent Ninth Circuit case, Chadd v. United States. I discussed that case here, and it involved even more tragic facts. There, a 370 pound mountain goat gored a hiker and killed him. Park rangers had known about this particular mountain goat and how aggressive it was. But since park rangers had the ability to exercise discretion as to how to best deal with the mountain goat, the court ruled that the government was immune from the wrongful death lawsuit.
What do you think about the discretionary function exception? I would love to hear your thoughts.
As you can tell, negligence and injury cases involving the federal government can be quite difficult. There could be liability or immunity issues. So talk to a lawyer knowledgeable about the Federal Tort Claims Act and its nuances before you proceed with your case.
The Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.
