S.R.P. Ex Rel. Abunabba v. United States
56 V.I. 901
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- S.R.P., a minor, was bitten by a barracuda while on Buck Island Beach in 2004, sustaining a serious foot injury.
- Buck Island is a Buck Island Reef National Monument unit managed by the National Park Service (NPS).
- In 2001, the Monument's boundaries expanded; in 2003 fishing was prohibited in surrounding waters per Proclamation 7392.
- Visitors receive Buck Island brochures with safety warnings about marine hazards, including barracudas, and signs at picnic areas echo these cautions.
- NPS policy directs minimizing hazards while balancing park resources, safety, and aesthetics; warnings are discretionary at the park level.
- SRP sued under the FTCA for negligent warning and staffing; the district court dismissed under the discretionary function exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FTCA discretionary function exception apply here? | SRP argues NPS knew the risk and had non-discretionary duty to warn. | United States contends NPS warnings were discretionary; policy analysis governs. | Yes; discretion applies; warning content and scope are policy-driven. |
| Was the district court correct in applying the two-step Gaubert framework? | SRP contends the court erred by not applying a relaxed standard for jurisdiction intertwined with merits. | USA asserts proper standard and burden on Government; district court did not err. | District court properly applied discretionary-function analysis and jurisdictional standards. |
| Was there evidence NPS had specific knowledge of shoreline barracuda risk? | SRP points to signals of risk—brochure language, signage, and actions after prior incidents—as notice. | Government shows no specific prior shoreline risk; only general awareness. | No clear error; no specific risk known regarding shoreline attacks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1997) (garden-variety safety decisions can fall outside discretionary function)
- Cestonaro v. United States, 211 F.3d 749 (3d Cir. 2000) (safety decisions tied to park policies may still be protected)
- Merando v. United States, 517 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2008) (balancing safety needs vs. resources; high-visitor areas focus)
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court, 1991) (discretionary function framework; policy analysis required)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (Supreme Court, 1988) (statutory prescriptions remove discretion)
- Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426 (9th Cir. 1996) (NPS warning discretion acknowledged in policy manuals)
- Elder v. United States, 312 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2002) (policy considerations in warning decisions; algae risk context)