595 F.Supp.3d 453
W.D.N.C.2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Audrey Williams Pride filed a Third Amended Complaint (June 30, 2020) alleging FTCA personal-injury and wrongful-death claims from exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.
- Pride was a civilian spouse living at Midway Park/Hadnot Point; she alleges injuries (endometriosis, infertility, aplastic anemia, neurobehavioral issues) and a stillbirth in 1986 due to the contaminated water.
- The Third Amended Complaint asserts causes including negligence, defective improvements to real property, willful/wanton negligence, fraud, and claims based on BUMED regulations and the Atomic Energy Act.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the wrongful-death claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and recommended denying dismissal of the personal-injury claim; the district court initially adopted the M&R in part and stayed the personal-injury ruling pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Clendening.
- After the Fourth Circuit decided Clendening, the court held that claims based on the Government’s failure to warn are barred by the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception, but claims based on the Government’s failure to provide clean drinking water are not barred by that exception; the court therefore dismissed failure-to-warn personal-injury claims and retained jurisdiction over failure-to-provide-clean-water personal-injury claims. The wrongful-death claim remains dismissed for failure to exhaust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personal-injury claims based on failure to warn are barred by the FTCA discretionary-function exception | Pride contends regulatory and statutory duties required warnings; thus claims are not discretionary | Gov’t argues BUMED regulations and AEA do not prescribe specific warning duties and warning decisions are discretionary policy judgments | Court: Dismissed these claims — discretionary-function exception bars failure-to-warn claims |
| Whether personal-injury claims based on the failure to provide clean drinking water are barred by the discretionary-function exception | Pride contends BUMED regs impose a mandatory duty to prevent hazardous contaminants in drinking water, so conduct was non-discretionary | Gov’t argues water-supply decisions involve discretion and policy balancing (and in related cases Feres may preclude exposure claims for servicemembers) | Court: Denied dismissal — discretionary-function exception does not apply to failure-to-provide-clean-water claims (and Feres does not bar civilian spouse claims) |
| Whether the wrongful-death claim was properly before the court | Pride asserted wrongful-death FTCA claim for stillborn son | Gov’t argued plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Court: Dismissed wrongful-death claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Clendening v. United States, 19 F.4th 421 (4th Cir. 2021) (held exposure claims by active-duty servicemembers barred by Feres; post-discharge failure-to-warn claims implicated discretionary-function exception)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (two-step test for discretionary-function exception)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (discretionary-function framework and application)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (bar on FTCA liability for injuries incident to military service)
- Wood v. United States, 845 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff bears burden to show FTCA exceptions do not apply)
- McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2004) (FTCA waiver and discretionary-function exception overview)
- Rich v. United States, 811 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2016) (government inattention/carelessness may not involve policy considerations)