Chadd Ex Rel. Estate of Boardman v. United States
794 F.3d 1104
9th Cir.2015Background
- Olympic National Park managed an introduced population of mountain goats; some goats became habituated and aggressive toward visitors.
- Park staff observed escalating incidents from ~2004–2010, deployed warnings, GPS collars, monitoring, and aversive hazing (paintballs/beanbags) focused on problem areas like Klahhane Ridge.
- Park biologists and rangers discussed relocation and intensified management; state biologists offered assistance for translocation in July 2010.
- On October 16, 2010, a large male goat attacked and killed visitor Robert Boardman; rangers located and killed the goat shortly thereafter.
- Boardman’s representative, Chadd, sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence for failure to destroy the goat earlier; the government moved to dismiss under the FTCA’s discretionary function exception and the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Park policies or directives mandated lethal removal of the goat (discretion v. mandatory duty) | Chadd: reasonable care required killing the goat; Park’s safety policy prioritized human life, so officials had no real choice | U.S.: Management manuals and park plans left method/timing to local discretion; no mandatory specific directive to destroy the goat | No mandatory directive existed; Park officials had discretion (first prong satisfied) |
| Whether the discretionary-function exception shields the Park’s management decisions (policy-based conduct) | Chadd: failure to escalate beyond hazing was operational negligence (like cleanup or implementation) not protected by the exception | U.S.: Decisions about how to protect safety v. other park values involve competing policy considerations and are susceptible to policy analysis, so exception applies | Discretionary-function exception applies because the decision was susceptible to policy analysis and implicated competing policy objectives (second prong satisfied) |
| Whether low-level, operational decisions can be protected under the exception | Chadd: exception should not extend to garden-variety negligence by front-line officials | U.S.: Nature of conduct, not actor status, governs applicability; implementation may be protected if implicates policy | Court: Actor status irrelevant; implementation is protected when it implicates policy concerns — here it did |
| Jurisdictional consequence: may FTCA tort claim proceed? | Chadd: FTCA waiver covers garden-variety negligence and exceptions must be narrow; plaintiff should have opportunity to prove abuse of discretion on merits | U.S.: Exception is jurisdictional; once applicable, sovereign immunity retained and suit must be dismissed | Held: Case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (discretionary-function exception protects policy-based governmental decisions from tort liability)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-step test for discretionary-function exception; exception shields actions based on considerations of public policy)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (distinguishes policy-based discretionary acts from operational negligence)
- Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005) (implementation of policy unprotected when it involves purely safety/professional judgment rather than policy weighing)
- Miller v. United States, 163 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 1998) (held a decision need only be "susceptible to policy analysis" to invoke the exception)
- Bailey v. United States, 623 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2010) (even two competing policy interests suffice to bring conduct within the exception)
- Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955) (once government elects to provide a public service, it must exercise due care in its operation; distinguishes policy initiation from operational maintenance)
- Bear Medicine v. United States, 241 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejects after-the-fact rationalizations and limits scope of protected policy discretion)
- Young v. United States, 769 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2014) (discretionary-function exception does not cover departures from established safety policies not grounded in policy considerations)