Teresa Gonzalez v. USA
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5114
5th Cir.2017Background
- Teresa Gonzalez rode the Couch Loop Trail in De Soto National Forest in July 2012, entered an alternate route with an illegally built ramp, fell, and suffered serious injuries.
- The ramp was built by private club members without USFS knowledge; USFS employees were unaware of the ramp before the accident.
- The Couch Loop Trail had been closed that day because of an unauthorized bridge farther down; a technician (Grice) had posted an 8.5"×11" closure notice on the trailhead bulletin board.
- Two USFS technicians were responsible for trail inspection/maintenance (spot checks, bush-hogging, responding to reports); no routine, specific inspection schedule or detailed mandatory procedures were shown in the record.
- Gonzalez sued under the FTCA alleging failures to inspect, maintain, and warn; the government moved to dismiss under the FTCA discretionary function exception (DFE). The district court granted dismissal; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inspection/maintenance decisions were non-discretionary | Gonzalez: Manual/Handbook impose mandatory inspection/maintenance duties (hazards must not exist) so DFE doesn't apply | U.S.: Manuals/Handbook provide general guidance leaving choice about how/when to inspect and allocate resources | Held: Discretionary — policies are precatory/general and leave room for judgment (prong 1 satisfied) |
| Whether inspection/maintenance decisions implicate policy considerations | Gonzalez: Routine maintenance is not policy-driven like commercial premises duties | U.S.: Trail maintenance involves resource allocation, environment, safety — policy balancing | Held: Susceptible to policy analysis — decisions grounded in social/economic/environmental policy (prong 2 satisfied) |
| Whether failure-to-warn claim is excepted from waiver (signage adequacy) | Gonzalez: Posted 8.5"×11" paper was insufficient and standards mandate specific sign content/placement — not discretionary | U.S.: Sign placement/design governed by guidelines that permit choices; USFS didn’t know of the ramp and marked closure per guidance | Held: Discretionary — Sign/Poster Guidelines and placement choices permit judgment and implicate policy considerations |
| Whether USFS had knowledge/created hazard (basis for liability) | Gonzalez: Constructive knowledge via passage of time could impute notice | U.S.: USFS had no knowledge and did not create the ramp; cannot warn of unknown hazard | Held: District court’s factual finding that USFS lacked knowledge accepted; liability cannot be premised on warning for unknown hazard; DFE applies regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-prong test for discretionary function exception; focus on whether conduct is susceptible to policy analysis)
- Berkovitz by Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (DFE doctrine; discretionary acts vs. acts compelled by a specific directive)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 696 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2012) (reading ostensibly mandatory language in context can still permit discretion)
- Gibson v. United States, 809 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing commercial, garden-variety safety decisions from policy-driven wilderness/land-management decisions)
- Autery v. United States, 992 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1993) (define the precise conduct at issue before testing whether regulations mandate a specific course)
- Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2010) (DFE discussion regarding agency discretion and policy considerations)
- Young v. United States, 769 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2014) (contrast where alleged failure to warn of an agency-created, known hazard was non-discretionary)