Estate of Delores WALTERS; Tanya Ward; Paddy Aungie; Melanie Traversie; Dion Hall; Brady Hall, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Safety, Appellee.
No. 06-2705.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: December 13, 2006. Filed: January 29, 2007.
474 F.3d 1137
Mark E. Salter, argued, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellee.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
BYE, Circuit Judge.
I
2 Three separate car accidents occurred between January 14 and May 6, 2004, on a 14.6 mile stretch of gravel road designated as BIA Route #3 within the exterior boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. Several people (hereinafter Walters) were injured in the accidents. They joined together to bring claims against the United States (acting through the BIA) under the FTCA alleging the washboard condition of the gravel road contributed to their accidents, and the BIA‘s lack of regular maintenance was the cause of the washboard condition.
3 The United States filed a motion to dismiss contending the discretionary function exception barred the suit because, under the circumstances of this case, maintenance of the road was a discretionary function. See
II
6 We review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Tillery v. Hoffman Enclosures, Inc., 280 F.3d 1192, 1196 (8th Cir.2002). If the FTCA‘s discretionary function exception applies, it is a jurisdictional bar to suit. Dykstra v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 140 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir. 1998). We also review de novo the district court‘s determination that it lacks jurisdiction. Simes v. Huckabee, 354 F.3d 823, 827 (8th Cir.2004).
7 Walters contends the district court erred in determining the discretionary function exception barred this suit because road maintenance is generally not considered a discretionary function, but rather a ministerial act performed at the operational level. See ARA Leisure Servs. v. United States, 831 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.1987) (concluding the discretionary function exception did not shield the Park Service from suit for its alleged failure to maintain a road in compliance with Park Service standards that required park roads to “conform to the original grades and alignments” and to be “firm, [and] of uniform cross section“). Walters likens ARA Leisure to this case because the applicable regulation here defined maintenance as “the act of preserving the entire roadway, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures, and the necessary traffic control devices as nearly as possible in the as-built condition and to provide services for the satisfactory and safe use of such roads.”
8 If
9 Where the applicable statutes, regulations, or policies allow the government to take budgetary considerations into account, the discretionary function exception applies. In National Union Fire Insurance v. United States, the Ninth Circuit explained this distinction:
10 A word also needs to be said about cost. In ARA Leisure, we said that the agency could not invoke the discretionary function exception based on budgetary considerations, but in Kennewick [Irrigation District v. United States, 880 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir.1989)] we said that it could. In this case we also say that it could. These cases can be reconciled;
whether the government can take cost into account depends on the applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In ARA Leisure, the regulation required the Park Service to maintain the road width and firmness, not to balance that goal against what it would cost. In the case at bar, the statute expressly requires the Corps to consider the “relation of the ultimate cost of such work” to the other factors in deciding whether to do the work. 33 U.S.C. § 541 . Where a statute or policy requires a particular government action, it has no discretionary function immunity based on its choice to spend its money doing something else instead. But where a statute or policy plainly requires the government to balance expense against other desiderata, then considering the cost of greater safety is a discretionary function.
13 115 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir.1997).
14 Walters gives us no reason to create a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on this issue, other than to urge us to consider the unfairness of shielding the BIA from suit for the serious injuries suffered by the parties in light of allegedly strong evidence the road was poorly maintained by the BIA. Unfortunately, the discretionary function exception is not about fairness:
15 Application of the exception is often troubling, because it may be a shield for carelessness and poor judgment. . . . Private actors generally must pay for the harm they do by carelessness. The government‘s power to tax enables it, better than any private actor, to perform its conduct with reasonable care for the safety of persons and property, and to spread the cost over all the beneficiaries if its conduct negligently causes harm. Fairness might seem to suggest that the government should be liable more broadly than private actors. But at its root, the discretionary function exception is about power, not fairness. The sovereign has, by the exercise of its authority, reserved to itself the right to act without liability for misjudgment and carelessness in the formulation of policy.
16 Id. at 1422.
17 Because the applicable regulations expressly required the BIA to consider the availability of funds in deciding whether to perform maintenance on its roads, we conclude the district court correctly held the discretionary function exception shields the government from suit in this case.2
III
18 We affirm the district court‘s order of dismissal.
19 COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.
20 I am not as confident as my colleagues that we can uphold the district court‘s conclusion that this action is barred by the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act,
23 I concur in the judgment, however, because I believe the district court correctly dismissed this action pursuant to the “private analogue requirement” of the FTCA. The FTCA extends jurisdiction to the district courts over claims against the United States for wrongful acts or omissions of government employees only in circumstances “where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
24 In this case, therefore, the dispositive question is whether a private entity would be liable to the plaintiffs if a private party negligently had failed to eliminate “washboard” conditions in the gravel road traveled by the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court of South Dakota provided guidance on this question in Estate of Shuck v. Perkins County, 577 N.W.2d 584 (S.D.1998). There, a driver of an automobile lost control of his vehicle due to loose gravel on a road, and the court held that the defendant county was not liable for negligence in maintaining the road by allowing loose gravel to remain on the road. The court reasoned that “there can be no duty or negligent breach thereof concerning a condition which is inherent to that subject matter,” and observed that the plaintiffs cited no authority that “loose gravel, by itself, is not an inherent part of a gravel road.” Id. at 589. In explaining what it meant by an “inherent” condition, the court stated that “[w]hile gravel when initially placed may be compacted by machinery, the passing of time, traffic, weather and the elements can result in that compacted gravel becoming loose.” Id. (emphasis added).
25 The holding of Shuck demonstrates that negligent maintenance resulting in loose gravel cannot give rise to an action under the FTCA, because a private party (like a county) has no duty in South Dakota to prevent the development of such an “inherent” condition. For the same reason, the failure to prevent washboard conditions in a gravel road would not give rise to tort liability for a private party in South Dakota. There is no dispute that “washboard conditions” are an inherent condition