Debra Kohl v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23507
6th Cir.2012Background
- Kohl, a certified bomb technician, participated in a DoD-funded field experiment at the Tennessee State Fire Academy involving detonation and debris collection for forensic analysis.
- ATF agents assisted in the experiment; after detonation, participants entered the range to inspect vehicles for evidence.
- Kohl and another technician attempted to search a minivan; the driver’s door buckled, hindering access.
- The team decided to use a winch on the driver’s door to access the vehicle interior and retrieve evidence.
- Kohl alleges injuries from the winching, claiming the door/frame struck her head; she seeks damages under the FTCA.
- The district court dismissed the FTCA claims as barred by the discretionary-function exception; the court’s dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary-function exception bars the FTCA claim | Kohl argues exception applies; government decisions about evidence extraction are discretionary. | United States contends decisions about post-blast evidence recovery are shielded by the exception. | Yes; claims were barred by the discretionary-function exception. |
| Whether framing the conduct as a winch operation negates discretion | Kohl frames issue narrowly as operator error in winching, immaterial to discretion. | Government framing shows discretion in executing the post-blast investigation. | Discretion exists; broader conduct related to executing the experiment is shielded. |
| Whether the absence of a mandatory regulation defeats discretionary-function protection | Lack of mandatory policy means no discretionary-function defense. | Discretion applies absent governing standards; no mandatory regulation here. | Discretionary-function exception applied; no mandatory policy required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (discretionary acts at operational level can be shielded)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (mandatory regulation removes discretion; otherwise discretion applies)
- Rosebush v. United States, 119 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 1997) (maintain scope of government conduct, not negligence)
- Varig Airlines v. United States, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (policy implementation vs. mere execution protected)
- Downs v. United States, 522 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1975) (discretionary-function exception did not apply based on policy formulation)
- Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955) (duty of due care in implementing government policy)
- Totten v. United States, 806 F.2d 698 (6th Cir. 1986) (equipment and execution decisions shielded by discretion)
- Autery v. United States, 992 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1993) (operational discretion in executing government program protected)
- Flynn v. United States, 902 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir. 1990) (discretionary-function exception bars negligent operation of emergency components)