855 F. Supp. 2d 728
E.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Hatcher filed this FTCA action on Oct. 22, 2010 seeking tort liability for injuries from a tree falling near the Cades Cove picnic area in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on Apr. 23, 2009.
- Plaintiff alleges the Park had a duty to inspect/maintain trees in the surrounding wooded areas to prevent foreseeable risks from falling rotted trees.
- United States moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing discretionary-function immunity and, alternatively, Tennessee’s Recreational Use Statute (RUS).
- Administrative tort claim for $350,000 was submitted Oct. 13, 2009; Department did not issue a final disposition within six months, thus deemed denied under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
- Court resolves the motion as a jurisdictional (Rule 12(b)(1)) challenge to the discretionary-function exception; it may consider materials outside the pleadings without converting to summary judgment.
- Court finds the discretionary-function exception applies because no mandatory duty existed and park inspection decisions were discretionary under policy and resource constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the discretionary-function exception bar FTCA jurisdiction? | Hatcher argues Park’s failure to inspect/maintain trees outside picnic area caused his injury. | US contends decisions about inspection/maintenance are discretionary and immune from FTCA liability. | Yes; discretionary-function exception bars subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Is the claim barred by the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute? | No indication of gross negligence under RU statute; still subject to FTCA unless RU applies. | RU immunizes landowners against liability for injuries to recreational users absent gross negligence. | Court does not reach RU issue because discretionary-function issue is dispositive. |
| Was there a mandatory statutory/policy directive requiring the Park to inspect/maintain trees differently? | Possible nondiscretionary duty to ensure safety of visitors. | No mandatory directive; guidelines use 'should' language permitting discretion. | No mandatory duty; discretion resides in implementation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (discretion under policy decisions; duty not mandatory)
- Wright v. United States, 868 F. Supp. 930 (E.D. Tenn. 1994) (hazardous-tree inspection/removal within discretionary function scope)
- Autery v. United States, 992 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1993) (inspect/remove procedures within discretionary function)
- Merando v. United States, 517 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2008) (controlling statutes/policies discretionary; parks can choose procedures)
- Rosebush v. United States, 119 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 1997) (negligence irrelevant to discretionary-function analysis)