FERNANDEZ v. UNITED STATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
3:21-cv-15003
| D.N.J. | May 31, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Anastasiya Fernandez tripped and fell on a step at Sandy Hook, a national recreation area managed by the National Park Service (NPS), after sunset in August 2019, allegedly due to inadequate lighting, resulting in injury.
- The NPS is responsible for maintaining both visitor safety and the preservation of natural environments at Sandy Hook, following management policies that balance those interests.
- The Fernandezes sued the NPS for negligence and loss of consortium.
- After discovery, NPS moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, primarily invoking the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The Court took the submissions on the motion, evaluated evidence beyond the pleadings, and ruled without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NPS's lighting decision is shielded | NPS should have added/artificial lighting for safety or closed the area at dusk | Lighting decisions are discretionary and based on environmental policy | Discretionary function exception applies; case dismissed |
| Whether NPS policies required more lighting | No policy mandated NPS to limit lighting in this developed area | NPS policies give discretion and prioritize preserving the natural lightscape | No mandatory directive; discretion allowed |
| Whether NPS's conduct is rooted in policy | Decision not to install more lights wasn't to protect nature, just convenience | Decisions were made for environmental reasons per policies on lights/nature | Actions were policy-based and thus shielded |
| Whether negligence impacts immunity status | Argued NPS could have taken simple safety measures | Even if negligent, discretionary act immunity applies under FTCA | Negligence does not affect immunity if exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (explains the discretionary function exception under the FTCA)
- United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797 (purpose of discretionary function exception is to prevent judicial second-guessing)
- Merando v. United States, 517 F.3d 160 (test for identifying government conduct and applicability of discretionary function exception)
- Sharp ex rel. Est. of Sharp v. United States, 401 F.3d 440 (application of discretionary function exception to federal recreation areas)