Holbrook v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5107
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- FAA regulates aircraft safety via certification; this case concerns a helicopter whose airworthiness certificate (AC) was issued in 2001 and later suspended in 2007.
- Holbrook, operating MARPAT Aviation, sued under FTCA alleging negligent issuance of the AC caused financial harm.
- The helicopter was a 1958 French Alouette II model, type-certificated under § 21.29; an Attestation from the French Civil Aviation Authority accompanied the import and AC application.
- Inspector Chadburn issued the AC under § 21.183(c) relying on the Attestation, the aircraft records, and its maintenance history.
- In 2006–2007 the FAA reexamined Alouette helicopters and determined the Attestation alone was insufficient for certification, leading to the suspension of the AC.
- District court dismissed under the discretionary function exception, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding FTCA liability barred by the discretionary function exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA discretionary function exception applies | Holbrook argues Chadburn acted outside discretion by misapplying rules | United States argues certification decisions are discretionary policy judgments | Yes, discretionary function applies; action was protected by FTCA. |
| Whether Chadburn properly applied § 21.183(c) vs § 21.183(d) | Holbrook claims Chadburn misapplied § 21.183(c) to an imported used aircraft | FAA regulation § 21.183(c) valid for imported aircraft; order guidance insufficient to remove discretion | Yes, Chadburn properly applied § 21.183(c). |
| Whether FAA Order 8130.2D creates mandatory duties | Holbrook contends Order 8130.2D requires § 21.183(d) for used imports | Order guidance is not mandatory and does not override § 21.183(c) | No mandatory duty; discretion preserved, order does not remove policy-based judgment. |
| Whether post-certification suspension negates prior discretionary protection | Holbrook seeks to hold the FAA liable for later suspension decisions | FTCA does not permit liability for policy-driven suspension actions; liability would deter safety actions | Yes, discretionary protection remains despite later suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Varig Airlines v. United States, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (discretionary regulatory authority to certify and supervise safety is protected)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (discretion in implementing statutes presumes policy-based actions)
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (presumes discretion when regulations authorize judgment calls)
- Tiffany v. United States, 931 F.2d 271 (4th Cir. 1991) (internal regulations guidance typically not actionable as mandatory duties)
- Baum v. United States, 986 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1993) (broad statutory goals do not remove design decisions from discretion)
- Indemnity Ins. Co. v. United States, 569 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2009) (FTCA discretionary function exception applies where policy judgments are involved)
- Roundtree v. United States, 40 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1994) (certification decisions involve policy judgments and are protected)
- GATX/Airlog Co. v. United States, 286 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirmed protection of certification decisions from tort suits)