512 F. App'x 527
6th Cir.2013Background
- Hatcher alleges personal injury from a tree falling on his leg in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Cades Cove).
- In March 2009, a park crew had inspected and removed 95 trees near the incident site prior to Hatcher’s injury.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6), citing the discretionary-function exception to FTCA immunity.
- The district court also noted a potential Tennessee Recreational Use Statute defense but did not resolve it.
- On appeal, Hatcher contends insufficient opportunity for discovery and challenges the discretionary-function ruling; the court affirms without addressing the RUST defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA discretionary-function applies? | Hatcher argues district court erred by dismissing without discovery. | United States contends inspections/removal are discretionary and barred by FTCA §2680(a). | Yes; discretionary-function applies, bars jurisdiction. |
| Court reliance on outside materials at Rule 12(b)(1)? | Hatcher says he should have had discovery before dismissal. | States court may review affidavits; discovery not required for dismissal on jurisdiction. | No reversible error; district court properly considered evidence. |
| Recreational Use Statute defense reached? | Hatcher seeks alternative liability argument under state law. | Government may raise RUST defense. | Not reached; FTCA discretionary-function disposition dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-part test for discretionary-function exception (mandatory regulations vs. policy judgments))
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (policy judgments shielded when discretion involved)
- Varig Airlines v. United States, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (social, economic, political policy concerns; avoid judicial second-guessing)
- Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (1953) (discretion extends to policy-based decisions in public safety)
- Rosenbush v. United States, 119 F.3d 438 (1997) ( Sixth Circuit application of Gaubert framework)
- Autery v. United States, 992 F.2d 1523 (1993) (Park Service safety conduct deemed discretionary)
- Bowman v. United States, 820 F.2d 1393 (1987) (design of park services involves balancing factors under discretion)
- Rogers v. Stratton Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 913 (6th Cir. 1986) (discretionary-function review on Rule 12(b)(1) context)
- Village of Oakwood v. State Bank & Trust Co., 539 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008) (discovery-related waiver considerations)