Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02471/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

( 

J 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 3 - 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

J. KENT DANIELS, ) Clerk 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

BLACK MOUNTAIN SPRUCE, INC., a ) 

Colorado corporation; SYSTIMATIC ) 

COMPANY, a foreign corporation, ) 

HYDRAULIC PRODUCTS & DESIGN, INC., ) 

a foreign corporation, ) 

) 

Defendants, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-2471 

(D.C. No. 86-M-145) 

(D. Colo.) 

676 F. Supp. 220 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2471 Document: 01019958664 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 1 
! 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

granting the United States' motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff, while working at a lumber mill, was seriously 

injured when a blade came loose from a trimmer saw, went through a 

wire mesh screen, and hit him in the legs. Plaintiff sued Black 

Mountain Spruce, Inc. and Hydraulic Products & Design, Inc., the 

corporations allegedly responsible for the design and manufacture 

of the saw, 1 and the United States. 

In his claim against the United States, plaintiff alleged 

that inspectors from the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) negligently directed plaintiff's employer to 

remove a solid wood guard from the trimmer saw and to replace it 

with a wire mesh screen which did not comply with agency 

regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.265(e)(4)(ii)(b). 2 Plaintiff also 

alleged that OSHA inspectors negligently failed to return to 

1 Defendant Black Mountain Spruce was dismissed with prejudice 

and a default judgment was entered against Hydraulic Products & 

Design. These defendants are not parties to the appeal. 

2 29 C.F.R. § 1910.265(e)(4)(ii) provides: 

(ii) Guards. 

(a) Trimmer saws shall be guarded in front by 

adequate baffles to protect against flying debris and 

they shall be securely bolted to a substantial frame. 

These guards for a series of saws shall be set as close 

to the top of the trimmer table as is practical. 

(b) The end saws on trimmmer shall be 

guarded. 

(c) The rear of trimmer saws shall have a 

guard the full width of the saws and as much wider as 

practical. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2471 Document: 01019958664 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 2 
/ 

reinspect the new screen and negligently failed to discover that 

the saw blade was attached inadequately to the motor shaft. 3 

The government moved to dismiss on the ground that the court 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the discretionary 

function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district 

court held that the exception applied and granted the motion. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the district court erred in 

applying the discretionary function exception because the OSHA 

inspector's selection of a wire mesh screen involved a nonpolicy 

judgment. Plaintiff argues that the inspector was required to 

order a guard that complied with the mandatory regulation. His 

judgment involved only a nondiscretionary decision based solely on 

engineering and scientific principles. Therefore, the 

discretionary function exception does not apply. 

The government argues that OSHA inspectors must exercise 

considerable policy judgment in order to evaluate the adequacy of 

guarding under the circumstances present in a particular 

situation. An inspector must determine what is reasonably 

necessary to comply with the regulation. 

After the district court's order was filed, the Supreme Court 

decided Berkovitz by Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 

S. Ct. 1954 (1988). In Berkovitz, the Court identified the types 

of decision making which fall within the parameters of the 

discretionary function test. The Court held that "if the 

[government's] policy leaves no room for an official to exercise 

policy judgment in performing a given act, or if the act simply 

3 On appeal, plaintiff has withdrawn these two issues. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2471 Document: 01019958664 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 3 
' 

: 

does not involve the exercise of such judgment, the discretionary 

function exception does not bar a claim that the act was negligent 

or wrongful." Id. 108 S. Ct. at 1964. 

This court has held that, in light of Berkovitz, if a 

plaintiff sufficiently alleges that only specific technical 

assistance involving no discretion or policy making choices is 

involved in making a particular judgment, the grant of defendant's 

motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is improper. See 

Ayala v. Joy Mfg. Co., 877 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Here plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to withstand a 

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff "may yet show . that the conduct 

challenged here did not involve the permissible exercise of policy 

discretion." Berkovitz, 108 S. Ct. at 1964. If plaintiff's 

allegations that the governmental actions involved no policy 

discretion are correct, the discretionary function exception will 

not bar plaintiff's claim. See id. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is REVERSED and REMANDED for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

further 

Appellate Case: 88-2471 Document: 01019958664 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 4