SCHROLLER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2:11-cv-07719
E.D. Pa.Jul 26, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Michele and William Schroller sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a tree limb fell at Valley Forge National Park on October 7, 2009, striking Michele and causing serious injuries.
- The Park Service, a bureau of the Department of the Interior, owns and operates Valley Forge National Park and is responsible for tree inspection and maintenance.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Government knew or should have known of the dangerous condition and failed to remove the hazard; they sought damages in excess of $150,000.
- The Government moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment) arguing the Discretionary Function Exception (DFE) to the FTCA bars jurisdiction; it alternatively invoked Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use Act.
- The court treated the operative conduct as the Park Service’s tree-inspection and maintenance plan (an informal/unwritten inspection regime) and examined whether that conduct was discretionary and policy-grounded under Gaubert/Berkovitz.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DFE bars FTCA liability for the tree-inspection/maintenance decisions | Schroller: no mandatory written policy; factual disputes whether any informal policy existed or was followed; thus DFE inapplicable | U.S.: Park Service had discretion in inspecting/removing hazardous trees; decisions grounded in policy and resource balancing so DFE applies | DFE applies; court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether a statute/regulation mandated specific tree-management procedures | Schroller: absence of a written mandatory rule means choices were not protected | U.S.: statutes and Park Service policies delegate discretion to park-level decisionmakers | Court found no statute/regulation mandated specific methods; discretion exists |
| Whether the Park Service’s informal inspection plan involved policy-based judgments | Schroller: even if informal plan existed, evidence shows employees may have ignored or negligently executed it | U.S.: plan reflected balancing of safety, aesthetics, conservation, resources — classic policy judgments | Court held the choices were grounded in social/economic/public policy and shielded by DFE |
| Whether factual disputes precluded dismissal | Schroller: factual issues about existence/implementation of policy require denial of dismissal | U.S.: record shows unwritten inspection plan was in place and district court may draw inferences | Court concluded record supported government's position and drew inferences for jurisdictional ruling; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (Sovereign immunity and waiver context)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (sovereign immunity principle)
- S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) v. United States, 467 U.S. 797 (DFE purpose and scope)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (two-part test for DFE: choice and policy grounding)
- Merando v. United States, 517 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. applying DFE to Park Service tree-maintenance decisions)
- Autery v. United States, 992 F.2d 1523 (discretion in park safety/maintenance decisions)