2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-20-2008 

# M e r ando v . U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4657

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" M e r ando v

. U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1494. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1494P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 06- 4657
ANTON M ERANDO, AS GE NERAL ADM I NI S TRAT OR A N D A D MI N I S T R A T O R A D P R O S E Q U E N D U M OF T HE E S T AT E S OF KAT HL E E N M E RA NDO

AND KA YL YN MER ANDO, A ppel l ant

v . UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; CO UNT Y OF S US S E X;

TOWN S HI P OF WALP ACK; P UBLI C SER V I CE ELE CT RI C A N D G A S; JO H N D O E S 1 -10 (S A ID N A M E S B E IN G F IC T IT IO U S ); X Y Z C O R P S
. 1 -10 (S A ID N A M E S B E IN G F IC T IT IO U S ); J E RS E Y C E NT RA L P OWER AND L I GHT
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i v. N o. 04- 3288) H onor abl e G arr ettE
. B r ow n, J r . , D i s t r i ctJ udge
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber14, 2007 B E FO R E : R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G , and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: February20, 2008)2 R i char d A
. G r odeck Fel dm an G r odeck 80 M ai n St r eet W es tO r ange, N J 07052 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant C h risto p h e r J. C h ristie U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Pam el a Perr on A s s i s t antU
. S. A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet N ew ark, N J 07102 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s cas e comes on befor e thi s C our ton an appe al fr om an or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed O ct ober5, 2006, di s m i s s i ng a compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 1)
. M er ando v. U n ited S tate s, C iv . N o . 0 4 -3 2 8 8 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 8 6 5 4 8 6 (D .N .J. O c t. 5, 2006)
. T he ac t i on ar os e i n t he af t erm ath of a tr agedyw hen on A ugus t11, 2003, a tr ee i n t he D el aw ar e W at erG ap N at i onal R ecr eat i on A r ea f

el l ont o a r oadw ayand crus hed a pa s s i ng car dr i ven byJ ani ne N oy es i n w hi ch K athl een M er ando and he r nine- y ear ol d d aug hterK ay l yn M erando w ere passengers. M rs . M er ando and K ay l yn w er e ki l l ed i ns t ant l y . A nt on M er ando, M r s . M er ando’ s hus band and K ay l yn’ s father , fi l ed thi s act i on a lleg in g th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t n e g lig e n tlyp ru n e d a n d f a iled to fin d an d rem o v e the h az ard o u s tr ee . B u t th e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed the ca s e as i tconcl uded thatthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on t o t he Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ctdepr i ved i tof s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on and thus i m m uni zed the G overnm entfr om s u i t
. W e wi l l a f

f i r m.3 I
. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY T he D el aw ar e W at erG ap N at i onal R ecr eat i on A r ea (“ P a rk ” ) o c c u p ies 6 3 ,0 0 0 a c re s in N e w Je rse ya n d P e n n sy lv a n ia al ong t he D el aw ar e R i ver . T he Park pr i m ar i l yi s for es t ed l and acc es s ed by169 m i l es of r oadw ay s , 68 m i l es of tr ai l s , and several stream s. T he d eveloped areas i nclude cam pg round s, boatl aunch a r eas , vi s i t orcent er s , pi cni c ar eas , hi s t or i c s i t es , and parki ng l ot s . T he Penns y l vani a s i de of the Park cont ai ns m or e of th e d e v e lo p e d a ttrac tio n s a n d th u s m o re p e o p le v isit itth a n v isit t he N ew Jer seysi de w hich doe s not have d eveloped beach es, boatl aunche s , orvi s i t orcent er s . T he N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce, an agenc yw i t hi n t he D epart m entof the I nt er i or , m anage s the Park. O n A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , N o y e s w a s d riv in g h e r c a r so u th e rly on R out e 615 on the N ew J er s eys i de of the Park w i t h K athl een a n d K a yl yn M e r a n d o a s p a s s e n g e r s . N o ye s d r o v e th e c a rb y a t w enty - s even f

oott al l r ed oak tr ee thatw as abouts i x y ar ds off t he r oad. T he G overnm entt ook t i t l e t o t he l and w her e the oak t r ee w as s i tuat ed i n 1969 and t o t he r oadw ayi t s el f i n 1996. T he t r ee’ s natur al gr ow t h caus ed i tt o l ean w i t h i t s br anche s ext endi ng overt he r oadw ay . M or e than t en y ear s befor e the t r agedyher e, an unknow n per s on w i el di ng a cha i ns aw had
“ t o p p e d ” a n d d e l i mb e d th e tr e e , l e a v i n g i ts t a n d i n g i n a “ Y” sh a p e w ith n o b a rk o r b ra n c h e s a n d w ith th e d e a d tre e p o le l eani ng t ow ar d t he r oadw ay . A s thei rcarpas s ed nea rbythe tr ee fel l and crus hed the ca ri ns t ant l yki l l i ng M r s . M er ando and K ay l yn. O n Ju ly9 , 2 0 0 4 , A n to n M e ra n d o f iled h is c o m p lain t in t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r twh i c h h e a me n d e d o n Au g u s t2 , 2 0 0 4
. He o r i g i n a l l y s u e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a , S u s s e x C o u n t y, W al pack Tow ns hi p, Publ i c Servi ce El ectr i c and G as , J er s ey C entr al Pow erand Li ght , J ohn D oes 1- 10, and X Y Z C orps . 1- 10 butexce ptfort he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca a l l ar e no l onger par t i es t o t hi s cas e. M r . M er ando al l eged thatthe D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o t he Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct (“ F T C A ” ), 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 6 (b ), 2 6 7 9 . In c o u n t o n e o f h is amended compl ai nt , he al l eged thatthe G overnm entas w el l as4 a ll th e o th e r d e f

e n d a n ts n e g lig e n tlyp ru n e d th e tre e c a u sin g it t o di e and e ventual l ycol l aps e, ki l l i ng the dec edent s . I n counttw o, h e a lleg e d th a t th e tre e c o n stitu ted a h a z a rd o u s a n d e x tre m e ly danger ous condi t i on of w hi ch the G overnm entand al l the other defe ndant s knew ors houl d have know n and thatal l the defe ndant s negl i gent l yfai l ed t o actt o r emove t he tr ee, ki l l i ng th e d e c e d e n ts. In c o u n t th re e , h e a lleg e d th a t th e d e c e d e n ts s us t ai ned s ever e i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng i n pai n and s uffe r i ng that con t i nu ed u nti l t heirdeaths. T he G overnm entm oved t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai ntforl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on on t he bas i s of t he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on t o t he FT C A , and on O c to b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n . W h ile t he G overnm ental s o fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntfor fa il u re to state a c lai m , arg u ing that the N ew Jerse yL an d o w n ers L iabili tyA ct, N
. J. S tat
. A n n . § § 2 A :42 A -2 to 1 0 (W est 2 0 0 0 ), b a rre d th e a c tio n , ina sm u c h a s th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t itd id nothave s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, i tdi d notaddr es s that m ot i on. O n O ct ober26, 2006, M r . M er ando fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce o f a p p e a l.

I I
. J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EW W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe fi nal or derof the D i s t r i ct C our tpur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew o v e r a p p lic a tio n o f

th e F T C A ’s d is c re tio n a ry f u n c tio n e x c e p tio n . S e e M itc h e ll v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 2 5 F .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e r es ol ve the ques t i on of w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on bythi s opi ni on.

I I I
. DI S CU S S I ON A
. T he D i s cr et i onaryFunct i on E xcept i on5 T he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca, as a s over ei gn, i s i m m une fr om s ui tunl es s i tcons ent s t o be s ued. U ni t ed St at es v. M i t chel l , 445 U
. S. 535, 538, 100 S. C t
. 1349, 1351 ( 1980) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Sher w ood, 312 U
. S. 584, 586, 61 S. C t
. 767, 769- 70 ( 1941) )
. N evert hel es s , underthe FT C A , the U ni t ed S tat es h as w aive d it s so v ere ign im m u n ityfo r: cl ai m s . . . form oneydamages
. . . fori nj uryor l os s of pr oper t y , orper s onal i nj uryordeath caus ed byt he negl i gentorw r ongful actorom i s s i on of any e m p lo y e e o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t w h ile a c tin g w ith in t he s cope of

hi s offi ce orempl oym ent , under c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re th e U n ited S tate s, if a p riv a te p e rso n , w o u ld b e liab le to th e c laim a n t in acc or dance w i t h the l aw of the pl ace w her e the ac t orom i s s i on occurr ed. 28 U
. S. C
. § 1346( b) ( 1) ; s ee a l s o 28 U
. S. C
. § 2674. T he FT C A carves outa “di s cr et i onaryfunct i on” exce pt i on, how ever , w hi ch pr ovi des thatthe G overnm entcannot be s ued foranycl ai m bas ed upon “the exe r ci s e orper form ance ort he fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e orper form a di s cr et i onaryfunct i on or dut yon t he partof a f

eder al agenc yoran empl oy ee of the G overnm ent , w hetherornotthe di s cr et i on i nvol ved be a bus ed. ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 2680( a)
. T he pl ai nt i ff, her e M r . M er ando, bear s the bur den of de m ons t r at i ng thathi s cl ai m s fal l w i t hi n t he s cope of th e F T C A ’s w a iv e r o f

g o v e rn m e n t im m u n ity , In re O rth o p e d ic B o n e S cre w P rod
. L iab. L it ig., 2 6 4 F
. 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 6 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ), but“‘ [t ] he U ni t ed St at es has the bur den of pr ovi ng the appl i cabi l i t yof the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on. ’ ” C es t onar o v. U ni t ed St at es , 211 F. 3d 749, 756 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng N at ’ l U ni on Fi r e I ns . v. U ni t ed St at es , 115 F. 3d 1415, 1 4 1 7 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 )). T h e d iscreti o n aryfu n cti o n ex ce p ti o n “m ark s the b o u n d ary betw een Congre s s ’ w i l l i ngnes s t o i m pos e t or tl i abi l i t yupon t he U ni t ed St at es and i t s des i r e t o pr ot ectcert ai n governm ent al act i vi t i es fr om expos ur e t o s ui tbypr i vat e i ndi vi dual s . ” U ni t ed S tate s v . S .A . E m p re sa d e V iac a o A e re a R io G ra n d e n se (V a rig A i r l i nes ) , 467 U
. S. 797, 808, 104 S. C t
. 2755, 2762 ( 1984)
. T he6 exce pt i on’ s purpos e i s “t o pr eventj udi ci al ‘ s econd- gues s i ng’ of leg isla tiv e a n d a d m in istra tiv e d e c isio n s g ro u n d e d in so c ial, economi c, and pol i t i cal pol i cythr ough t he medi um of an a ct i on i n t or t
. ” I d. at814, 104 S. C t
. at2765. C our t s m ake tw o- par ti nqui r i es t o det erm i ne w hetherthe d is c re tio n a ry f

u n c tio n e x c e p tio n a p p lie s in a n yp a rt ic u la r c a s e . U ni t ed St at es v. G aubert , 499 U
. S. 315, 322- 23, 111 S. C t
. 1267, 1273- 74 ( 1991)
. Fi r s t , a courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe ac t gi vi ng r i s e t o t he al l eged i nj uryand thus the s ui ti nvol ves an “el ementof j udgm entorchoi ce. ” I d. at322, 104 S. C t
. at1273 ( quot i ng B erkovi t z v. U ni t ed St at es , 486 U
. S. 531, 536, 108 S. C t
. 1954, 1958 ( 1988) )
. “The r equi r ementof j udgm entor choi ce i s nots at i s fi ed i f a ‘ fede r al s t atut e, r egul at i on, orpol i cy sp e c if ica llyp re sc rib e s a c o u rse o f a c tio n f o r a n e m p lo y e e to f o llo w ,’ b e c a u se ‘th e e m p lo y e e h a s n o rig h tf u l o p tio n b u t to adher e t o t he di r ect i ve. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng B erkovi t z, 486 U
. S. at 53 6, 10 8 S
. C t
. at19 58 -59); see al so M i t chell v. U nit ed S t at es, 2 2 5 F
. 3 d a t3 6 3 ; Ce s t o n a r o , 2 1 1 F
. 3 d a t7 5 3
. Th e S u p r e me C our thas s t at ed:

[I ] f a r egul at i on m andat es part i cul ar conduct , and the empl oy ee obe y s the di r ect i on, the G overnm entw i l l be pr ot ect ed bec aus e the ac t i on w i l l be dee m ed i n fur t her ance of the pol i ci es w h ich led to the p rom u lgation o f th e re g u lat ion
. If t he empl oy ee vi ol at es the mandat oryr egul at i on, there w il l be n o sh elt er f rom li ab il ityb ec au se th ere i s no r oom forchoi ce a nd the ac t i on w i l l be contr aryt o pol i cy . O n t he otherhand, i f a reg u lat ion all o w s the em p loy ee d iscreti o n , the v ery exi s t ence of the r egul at i on cr eat es a s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hata di s cr et i onaryactauthor i zed by t h e r e g u l a t i o n i n v o l v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e s a me pol i ci es w hi ch l ed t o t he pr om ul gat i on of the regul at i on s. G aubert , 499 U
. S. at324, 111 S. C t
. at1274 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itted).7 Second, even i f the cha l l enged c onducti nvol ves an el ementof j udgm ent , t he courtm us tdet erm i ne “w hetherthat j udgm enti s of the ki nd thatthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on w as des i gned t o s hi el d. ” I d. at322- 23, 111 S. C t
. at1273. B eca us e the purpos e of the exc ept i on i s t o pr event j udi ci al ‘ s econd- gues s i ng’ of l egi s l at i ve and a d m in istra tiv e d e c isio n s g ro u n d e d in so c ial, economi c, and pol i t i cal pol i cythr ough t he medi um of an a ct i on i n t or t , w hen pr oper l ycons t rued, the exce pt i on pr ot ect s onl ygovernm ent al act i ons and d e c i s i o n s b a s e d o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y. I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he “f ocus of the i nqui r yi s noton t he age nt ’ s s ubj ect i ve i nt enti n exer ci s i ng t he di s cr et i on confe r r ed bythe s t atut e orr egul at i on, buton t he n a tu re o f th e a c tio n s ta k e n a n d o n w h e th e r th e ya re su sc e p tib le t o p oli cyanaly si s. ” Id. at32 5, 11 1 S
. C t
. at12 75 ; see al so M i t chel l , 225 F. 3d at363- 64; C es t onar o, 211 F. 3d at753; S ea -L an d S erv . Inc
. v . U n it ed S tat es, 91 9 F
. 2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). B
. T he C hal l enged G overnm entC onduct B e f o re w e c a n m a k e th e tw o -p a rt G a u b e rt in q u iryto det erm i ne w hethert he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on i mm u n i z e s t h e Go v e r n me n tf r o m a s u i tb a s e d o n i t s c o n d u c t , we m u s t id e n tif

yth e c o n d u c t a t is s u e . C e s to n a ro , 2 1 1 F .3 d a t 7 5 3
. M r . M er ando cont ends t hatthe conduc tforpurpos es of the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on anal y s i s i s tw ofol d: fi r s t , that th e P a rk S e rv ice ’s R o a d s a n d M a in ten a n c e c re w s n e g lig e n tly
“ t o p p e d ” t h e t r e e wi t h o u tr e mo v i n g i t ; a n d s e c o n d , th a tth e c r e ws n e g l i g e n t l yf

a i l e d t o f i n d a n d r e mo v e th e “ t o p p e d ” tr e e . He c o n ten d s th a t th e d isc re tio n a ryf u n c tio n e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t ap p ly her e bec aus e the Park Ser vi ce’ s unw r i t t en haz ar dous tr ee m anage m entpl an mandat ed the cr ew s nevert o “t op” tr ees but r athert o i dent i fyand r emove hazar dous tr ees as theydr ove the r oads of the Park.8 O n t he otherhand the G overnm entcont ends thatthe c o n d u c t at iss u e is th e P a rk S e rv ice ’s d e c isio n s th a t co m p rise its haza r dous t r ee managementpl an and i t s exec ut i on of thatpl an. T o ai d us i n ouranal y s i s , w e r evi ew A ut eryv. U ni t ed St at es , a ca s e thati s r emar kabl ys i m i l art o t hi s cas e. 992 F. 2d 1523 ( 11t h C i r . 1993) ; s ee a l s o R os ebus h v. U ni t ed St at es , 119 F .3 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 1 -4 2 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (re ly in g o n A u ter yin det erm i ni ng w hatconductw as ati s s ue w hen pl ai nt i ffs s ued the G overnm entfornegl i gent l yfai l i ng t o m ai nt ai n fi r e pi tat campgr ound)
. I n A ut ery , a bl ack l ocus ttr ee f el l on a pas s i ng car i n t he G r eatSm okeyM ount ai n N at i onal Par k, ki l l i ng one p a s s e n g e ra n d i n

j u r i n g a n o t h e r . 9 9 2 F
. 2 d a t1 5 2 4
. Atth e t i me o f th e a c c id e n t, th e P a rk S e rv ice h a d a n u n w ritten p o licy“ to m a k e e v e ryre a so n a b le e f f o rt w ith in th e c o n stra in ts o f b u d g e t, m a n p o w e r, an d e q u ip m e n t av a ilab le to d e tec t, do c u m e n t, r emove, and pr eventt r ee ha zar ds
. ” I d. at1525. T o i m pl ement t hi s pol i cy , Par k Ser vi ce pe r s onnel “i ni t i al l yconduct ed vi s ual i ns pect i ons fr om t rucks dr i ven al ong t he r oad. A nytr ee that ap p ea red h az ard o u s w as th en insp ec ted m o re c lose ly
. ” Id
. In t he A ut erys i tuat i on Par k Ser vi ce pe r s onnel r ece i ved i nform at i on r egar di ng t he r i s ks pos ed bybl ack l ocus ttr ees i n t he park. A ft er a benc h t r i al , t he di s t r i ctcour tfound thatthe G overnm ent“had negl i gent l yfai l ed t o ( 1) devi s e, i m pl ementand fol l ow an a p p ro p ria te tre e h a z a rd m a n a g e m e n t p lan ; (2 ) p ro p e rlym a in tain t he N at i onal Par k ar ea; ( 3) pr oper l yi ns pectthe tr ees i n t he N at i onal Par k i n t he ar ea w her e the ac ci dentoccurr ed; and ( 4) i dent i fyand r emove t he haz ar dous tr ees w hi ch fe l l and s t ruck [the vi ct i m s ]
. ” I d. at1524. O n a p p e a l, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C irc u it confr ont ed the ques t i on of i dent i fy i ng the conduc tati s s ue for purpos es of a di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on anal y s i s . T he G o v ern m en t argu ed that the c o n d u ct w as th e G o v ern m en t’ s “ d e c is io n to e s ta b lis h a n d im p le m e n t a tr e e in s p e c tio n p ro g ra m ,” w h il e the p lai n ti ff

s co n tend ed that the c o n d u ct w as “ the p ark ’s fai l ur e t o carr youtt he mandat es of i t s then exi s t i ng pol i cyof i dent i fy i ng and el i m i nat i ng know n haza r dous tr ees . ” I d. at1527 ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T he di s t r i ctcour thad hel d t hat“the i nqui r y. . . i s w hetherthe Park Ser vi ce of fi ci al s had di s cr et i on9 undert hei rT r ee H aza r d M anage m entPl an t o r emove ‘ haza r dous ’ t r ees . ” I d. T he courtof appe al s , how ever , s t at ed: T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s f

o c u s o n th e d e c isio n to es t abl i s h a tr ee i ns pect i on pl an i s t oo br oad; as pl ai nt i ffs conce de, the governm enthad the di s cr et i on t o adoptornotadopta pl an atal l
. T he m or e i m por t antques t i on i s w hetheranys t atut e, re g u latio n o r a g e n c yg u id e lin e sp e c if ica lly p rov ided that if a tree ins p ec ti o n p lan w ere devel oped, i tw oul d have t o i ncl ude part i cul ar i nspecti on proced ures. I d. ( footnot e omi t t ed)
. T he courtcont i nued: Pl ai nt i ffs ’ and the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s focus , on t he ot herhand, i s t oo narr ow . T he part i cul ari nqui r i es pos ed bypl ai nt i ffs and the di s t r i ctcour tar e bas ed on m i si nterpret at i on s of t he law
. P l ai nti ffs’ su p p o rttheir co n tention that the d iscreti o n ary f u n c tio n e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t ap p lyto th e m a n n e r in w hi ch park per s onnel admi ni s t er ed the i ns pect i on p lan b yre ly in g o n F if

th C irc u it ca se s th a t h a d h e ld t hatt he governm entw as notpr ot ect ed w hen i tw as p e r f o r mi n g a n o p e r a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n . Th e S u p r e me C o u rt sq u a re lyre

jec ted th is p ro p o se d d istin c tio n in G a u b e rt, ru lin g th a t th e F if th C irc u it ‘er re d in hol di ng t hatt he [di s cr et i onaryfunct i on] exce pt i on does notr eac h deci s i ons m ade a tthe oper at i onal or m anage m entl evel
. ’ G aubert , 499 U
. S. at325, 111 S. C t
. at1275. ‘ D i s cr et i onaryconducti s not confi ned t o t he pol i cyorpl anni ng l evel
. ’ I d. ; s ee al s o V ar i g A i r l i nes , 467 U
. S. at813, 104 S. C t
. at 2764 ( ‘ [I ] ti s t he natur e of the conduc t , r atherthan t he s t atus of the ac t or , thatgoverns w hetherthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on appl i es i n a gi ven ca se.’)
.10 Id . at 1 5 2 7 -2 8 (in ter n a l cita tio n s, q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d f o o tn o te par t i al l yom i t t ed)
. T he courtadded: T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nqui r y , on t he otherhand, by a sk in g w h e th e r th e p a rk o f f icia ls h a d d isc re tio n to r emove ‘ haza r dous ’ tr ees , begs the ques t i on. T he t r ee i ns pect i on pr ogr am w as des i gned t o i dent i fy w h ich tree s w ere h az ard o u s. W h ethe r pa rk p e rso n n e l h a d d isc re tio n in e x e c u tin g th a t p lan is th e re lev a n t issu e . T h e d istric t co u rt’s a n a ly sis appea r s t o col l aps e the ques t i on of w hetherthe P ark S erv ice w as n eg li g en t i n to the d iscreti o n ary funct i on i nqui r y . T hati s , aft erfi ndi ng thatthe Par k Ser vi ce ha d know l edge of the dange rof bl ack l ocus tt r ees , t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pos ed a ‘reaso n ab lene ss’ req u ir em en t on the g o v ern m en t’ s c o n d u c t. I d. at1528. T he courtconcl uded: I ti s t he governi ng admi ni s t r at i ve pol i cy , notthe Par k Ser vi ce’ s know l edge of danger , how ever , that d eterm ines w h ethe r ce rt ain c o n d u ct i s m an d atory forpurpos es of the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on. T he FT C A expr es s l ypr ovi des thatthe e x c e p tio n a p p lies to p o licyju d g m e n ts, e v e n to t hos e cons t i tut i ng abus e of di s cr et i on. T her efor e, t he r el evanti nqui r yher e i s w hethercontr ol l i ng s t atut es , r egul at i ons and admi ni s t r at i ve pol i ci es m andat ed thatt he Park Ser vi ce i ns pectfor haza r dous t r ees i n a s peci fi c manner . I f not , then t he Park offi ci al s ’ deci s i on t o empl oya part i cul ar i ns pect i on pr ocedur e – and i t s exec ut i on of that pl an – i s pr ot ect ed bythe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on. I d
. ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s a n d q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )
. U l t i m a t e l y, t he courtof appe al s hel d t hatthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on i m m uni zed the G overnm entfr om a l aw s ui tbas ed on t he dec i s i ons Par k Ser vi ce pe r s onnel m ade i n des i gni ng and i m pl ement i ng t he park’ s unw r i t t en tr ee i ns pect i on pr ogr am, and11 t hus t he courtdi s m i s s ed the ca s e forl ack of s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n . M r. M e ra n d o p re se n ts a n a rg u m e n t th a t is v e rysim ilar to th e p lain tiff

s’ a rg u m e n t an d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n in A ut ery . H e cont ends t hatthe conduc tati s s ue i s the G overnm ent ’ s al l eged f ai l ur e pr oper l yt o prune, fi nd, and re m o v e th e h a z a rd o u s tr e e . M r . M er ando’ s al l egat i on thatthe G overnm ent neg l i gen t l ypruned t he tr ee cau si ng i tt o d ecayand coll apse im p lies th a t itw a s th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t to p p e d th e tre e . B u t th is a l l e g a t i o n i s u n s u p p o r t a b l e b e c a u s e M r . M e r a n d o h a s n o ts h o wn t hatt he G overnm enti n anyw ayw as i nvol ved i n t he t oppi ng of th e tre e e ith e r b yc o n se n tin g to its to p p in g o r a c tu a llyto p p in g it i t s el f. I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, w e r ecogni ze, of cour s e, that th e G o v e rn m e n t to o k title to th e s ite o f th e tr e e in 1 9 6 9
. M or eover , w e r eal i ze thatM r . M er ando cont ends i n hi s br i ef that “ac cor di ng t o t he evi dence ” the tr ee w as t opped “dur i ng the 30+ y e a rs a f te r t h e [ N a tio n a l P a rk s S e rv ic e ] t o o k title to it in 1 9 6 9 ,” t h e r e f o r e s u g g e s t i n g t h a ti tc o n t r o l l e d th e tr e e wh e n th e u n k n o wn p e rs o n to p p e d it. A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 4
. W e c a n n o t, ho w e v e r, d ra w a n yin f e re n c e f ro m th is chrono l og yof ev ents as i tcann ot be i nferred that, against G overnm entpol i cynott o t op tr ees , i tw as the G overnm entthat t op ped t he tr ee or that i tcon sent ed to i t s t op ping m erel ybecau se i tm ayhave ow ned the l and on w hi ch the tr ee w as s i tuat ed w hen the u n k n o w n p erso n top p ed it
. A fter all, in M r. M era n d o ’s ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es he t el l s us that“[i ] ti s under s t ood fr om document s w hi ch have been pr oduced i n di s covery. . . thatthe C ount yof Suss ex r et ai ned r es pons i bi l i t yfortr ee tr i m m i ng and cl ear ance even a ft erj ur i s di ct i on forthe C ount yR oad w as t r ans ferr ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca” i n 1996, app. at 281, t hus s ugges t i ng t hatSuss ex C ount yt opped the tr ee. O n t he ot herhand, i n an uncont es t ed mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent Suss ex C ount yas s er t ed that“[t ] he i dent i t yof the companyor i ndi vi dual s w ho t opped the tr ee i s unknow n” butthatthe “tr ee w as t opped pr es um abl ybya pow ercompany . ” Fur t herm or e, t her e w oul d be no bas i s t o i nferthatthe G overnm entcons ent ed t o t he t oppi ng of the tr ee oractual l yt opped i tm er el ybeca us e theC l ear l y w e can exa m i ne the fa ct s w i t h r es pectt o t he 1 i d e n t i t yo f t he pe r s o n wh o t o p p e d th e tr e e o n th i s a p p e a l f r o m a di s m i s s al pr edi cat ed on the w antof s ubj ectm att erj u ri s di ct i on underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 1)
. See C esto n ar o, 211 F. 3d at752. 12 t r ee w as s i tuat ed i n a 63, 000 acr e park ata l ocat i on thati tm ay h a v e o w n e d w h e n t h e u n k n o w n p e r s o n t o p p e d th e tr e e . C l e a r l y, t oo m anydi ffe r entent i t i es had ac ces s t o t he tr ee t o perm i ta tr i er o f th e f a c t to d ra w th a t in f

e re n c e . I n s um , t her e i s s i m pl ynei t herdi r ectevi dence nor evi dence fr om w hi ch an i nfer ence can be dr aw n t hatthe G ov ernm ent t op ped t he tr ee and this absenc e of e vidence as a f a c tu a l m a tter e lim in a tes f ro m th is c a se M r. M e ra n d o ’s c laim th a t P a rk S e rv ice p e rso n n e l v io late d a m a n d a to ryp o licyn o t to “t op ” t rees . 1 A cc o rdin g ly , w e o n lyw il l ana ly ze the o ther a sp ec t of M r. M er ando’ s cl ai m : hi s chal l enge t o t he G overnm ent ’ s al l eged negl i gentfai l ur e t o fi nd and r emove t he tr ee. M r . M er ando ar gues t hatt he Park Ser vi ce’ s cr ew s di d nothave di s cr et i on not to f ind an d rem o v e the h az ard o u s tr ee . L ike th e d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on i n A ut ery , how ever , M r . M er ando’ s ar gum entbegs the ques t i on. T he Park Ser vi ce de s i gned i t s haza r dous tr ee m anage m entpl an, w hi ch w e det ai l bel ow , t o i dent i fyw hi ch tr ees w ere h az ard o u s. T h e re leva n t i ssu e h ere is w h ethe r th e P ark S e rv ic e h a d d is c re tio n in f o rm u la tin g a n d e x e c u tin g th a t p la n . M r. M era n d o ’s claim s reg ard ing the G o v ern m en t’ s a lleg e d n e g lig e n t f

a ilu re to f

in d a n d re m o v e th e tre e e ss e n tially ar e a c hal l enge t o t he Park Ser vi ce’ s pl an forfi ndi ng and m a n a g in g h a z a rd o u s tre e s. T h e P a rk S e rv ice ’s p lan a n d its exec ut i on of thatpl an cons t i tut es the conduc tati s s ue for purpos es of the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on anal y s i s . L i ke t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum enti n A ut ery , M r . M er ando’ s focus on t he act i ons of the Park Ser vi ce c r ew s s i m pl yi s t oo narr ow . T he rel evan ti nq uiryi s w hetherthe co ntr oll i ng st atutes , regul at i on s, a n d a d m in istra tiv e p o licie s m a n d a te th a t th e P a rk S e rv ice lo c a te and manage haz ar dous tr ees i n anys peci fi c manner . I f not , the13 Par k Ser vi ce’ s deci s i ons as t o t he pr eci s e manneri n w hi ch t o do s o, and i t s exec ut i on of thos e dec i s i ons , cl ear l yfal l w i t hi n t he d iscreti o n aryfu n cti o n ex ce p ti o n to the g o v ern m en t’ s tort liab ili ty . S e e a lso V a rig A irline s, 4 6 7 U .S . at 8 1 9 -2 0 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 7 6 7 -6 8 (d isc re tio n a ryf u n c tio n e x c e p tio n p ro tec ts b o th G overnm ent ’ s deci s i on t o “s pot - chec k” ai rpl anes forcompl i ance w i t h s afe t yr egul at i ons and exe cut i on of thos e “s pot - chec ks ” by G o v ern m en t perso n n el). C
. W hethert he D i s cr et i onaryFunct i on E xcept i on I m m uni zes t he G overnm entfr om a Law s ui tB as ed on i t s C onduct N ow t hatw e have i dent i fi ed the G overnm ent ’ s conductat issue in this ca se, w e d eterm ine w h ethe r th e d iscreti o n ary funct i on exce pt i on i m m uni zes i tfr om a l aw s ui tbas ed on that conduct
. I n t hi s i nqui r yw e fi r s tm us tdeci de w hethera s t atut e, r egul at i on, orpol i cyr equi r ed the Park Ser vi ce t o l ocat e and m anage haza r dous t r ees i n anys peci fi c manner , orw hetherthe G overnm ent ’ s act i ons w er e di s cr et i onarybeca us e theyi nvol ved an “e l ementof j udgm entorchoi ce. ” G aubert , 499 U
. S. at322, 111 S. C t
. at1273. T h e N a tio n a l P a rk S e rv ice w a s e sta b lish e d to p r o mo t e a n d r e g u l a t e th e u s e o f th e F e d e r a l a r e a s k n o wn as nat i onal parks , m onum ent s , and r es ervat i ons . . . by s uch means and meas ur es as conform t o t he funda m ent al pu rpose of the sai d p arks, m on um ents , and res ervat i on s, w hi ch purpos e i s t o cons erve the s cene r yand the natur al a n d h isto ric o b

jec ts a n d th e w ild life th e re in a n d to pr ovi de fort he enj oym entof the s ame i n s uch mannerand bys uch means as w i l l l eave them uni m pai r ed forthe enjoym ent of futur e gen erat i on s. 16 U
. S. C
. § 1. T he Park Ser vi ce’ s s peci fi c mi s s i on forthe D el aw ar e W at erG ap N at i onal R ecr eat i on A r ea i s t o m ai nt ai n t he pr oper t y“forpubl i c out doorr ecr eat i on us e and e nj oym ent
. . . by t he peopl e of the U ni t ed St at es and forpr es ervat i on of the sc e n ic, s c ien tific , an d h isto ric f e a tu re s c o n trib u tin g to p u b lic enj oym entof s uch l ands and w at er s . . . . ” 16 U
. S. C
. § 460o.14 I n t he admi ni s t r at i on of the Park, “the Secr et aryof the I nt er i orm ayut i l i ze s uch s t atut oryauthor i t i es r el at i ng t o ar eas of t he n at i on al park sy st em and such st atutoryauthori t i es ot herw i se avai l abl e t o hi m fort he cons ervat i on, m anage m ent , ordi s pos al o f v e g e t a t i v e , mi n e r a l , o rf i s h o rwi l d l i f

e r e s o u r c e s a s h e d e e ms ap p rop ri ate . .
. . ” 1 6 U
. S
. C
. § 4 6 0 o -3. M o reo v er, th e S ec retary shal l ado pt and i m plem ent .
. . a l and and w at er use m a n a g e m e n t p lan , w h ich sh a ll i n c lu d e sp e c if ic p ro v isio n f

o r, in o rd e r o f

p rio rity– (1 ) p u b lic out doorr ecr eat i on benef i t s ; ( 2) pr es ervat i on of s ceni c, s ci ent i fi c, and hi s t or i c fe atur es contr i but i ng t o publ i c enj oym ent ; ( 3) s uch ut i l i zat i on of natur al r es our ces as i n t he j udgm entof the Secr et aryof the I nt er i ori s cons i s t entw i t h, and does not s i gni fi cant l yi m pai r , publ i c r ecr eat i on and p ro tec tio n o f

sc e n ic, s c ien tific , an d h isto ric f e a tu re s c o n trib u tin g to p u b lic e n jo ym e n t. 16 U
. S. C
. § 460o- 4. T he Park Ser vi ce’ s “M anage m entPol i ci es 2001” manual s e t s o u ti t s v i s i t o rs a f

e t y p o l i c y: T he s avi ng of hum an l i fe w i l l t ake pr ece dence o v er a ll o ther m an ag em en t acti o n s as th e P ark Ser vi ce s t r i ves t o pr ot ecthum an l i fe a nd pr ovi de f o r in ju ry -f re e v isits. T h e S e rv ice w ill d o th is w ith in th e c o n s tr a in ts o f th e 1 9 1 6 O rg a n ic A c t. T he pr i m ary– and verys ubs t ant i al – cons t r ai nt im p o sed b ythe O rga n ic A ct i s tha t discreti o n ary m a n a g e m e n t ac tiv iti e s m a yb e u n d e rta k e n o n lyto t he ext entt hatt heyw i l l noti m pai rpark r es our ces and val ues . . . . W hen pr act i cabl e, and cons i s t ent w i t h congr es s i onal l ydes i gnat ed purpos es and m andat es , t he Servi ce w i l l r educe orr emove k n o w n h a z a rd s a n d a p p lyo th e r a p p ro p ria te m eas ur es , i ncl udi ng cl os ur es , guar di ng, s i gni ng, or ot herform s of educ at i on. I n doi ng s o, the Ser vi ce’ s pr efe r r ed ac t i ons w i l l be thos e thathave th e le a s t im p a c t o n p a rk re s o u rc e s a n d v a lu e s . . . .15 T hes e managementpol i ci es do noti m pos e parks peci fi c vi s i t ors afe t ypr es cr i pt i ons . T he means by w h ich p u b lic s a f

e tyc o n c e rn s a re to b e a d d re ss e d is l eftt o t he di s cr et i on of s uper i nt endent s and other d ec isi o n -m ak ers a t th e p ark leve l, w h o m u st w o rk w i t hi n t he l i m i t s of fundi ng and s t aff i ng. A pp. at368. Si gni fi cant l y , nothi ng i n t he above

- quot ed s t atut es orpol i ci es m andat es how the G overnm ents houl d l ocat e ordeal w i t h h azardou s trees . I n addi t i on t o t hes e s t atut es and pol i ci es , the Park Ser vi ce i s s ued a 1991 doc um entent i t l ed “N atur al R es our ces M anage m entG ui del i nes , ” cont ai ni ng a “H aza r dous T r ee” s ect i on t hat“pr ovi des the founda t i on foreac h park t o i m pl ement its o w n h a z a rd o u s tre e m a n a g e m e n t p lan
. . . , a n d a lso to p ro v id e a g e n e ra l sc h e m e f o r su c h p lan s.” A p p . at 1 7 7 . T h is se c tio n sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: T he fol l ow i ng gui dance m aybe us ed i n devel opi ng a p ark p lan. E ac h p lan m u st be tai lored to a p ark ’s par t i cul arr equi r ement s acc or di ng t o veget at i on t ype( s ) , t ype of vi s i t orus e ar eas , fr equenc yof vis i t at i on , and otherfact ors.

. . . . Per i odi cal l y , anytr ees w hi ch s t and w i t hi n fal l i ng dis t ance o f pu bli c use areas and w hich m i gh tpo se a h a z a rd to th e p u b lic o r sig n if ica n t p ro p e rty s houl d be s y s t emat i cal l yi ns pect ed forfl aw s . T he form and fr equenc yof r out i ne i ns pect i on or survei l l ance w i l l dep end on the type o f vis i t or use ar eas ( w hi ch w i l l be def i ned l at er )
. T he cons t r ai nt s of m anpow eravai l abl e t o a park m ay notperm i tper i odi c i ns pect i on of al l pert i nent a re a s. . . . F re q u e n c yo f in sp e c tio n a s c a lled f

o r in t he [h azardou s tree m anag em ent pl an] beco m es a l ocal i s s ue key ed t o t he natur e of the park and vi s i t orus e.16 . . . . A n ytre e d e n o ted a s h a z a rd o u s s h o u ld b e p ro m p tly cared for, usi ng the b estarbori cultural t echn i qu es, to e lim in a te th e h a z a rd o u s s tatu s o f th e tre e . If

it cannotbe made s afe , ori f the ef for tt o m ake i ts afe w oul d be t oo cos t l yi n t erm s of m anpow eror dol l ar s , t hen the tr ee maybe r emoved.

. . . . D el i ber at e vi s ual i ns pect i ons of tr ans por t at i on corr i dor s s houl d i ncl ude al l tr ees thatcoul d aff ect t he r oadw ay . A r eas thatm aybe s cr eene d or ot herw i s e di ffi cul tt o vi ew fr om the r oad s houl d be gi ven a w al k- t hr ough i ns pect i on. D r i ve- by i ns pect i ons m aynotcat ch al l fl aw s i n t he tr ees a lo n g ro a d w a y s. H o w e v e r, itis g e n e ra lly re c o g n ize d th a t itm a yn o t b e re a listica llyp o ss ib le t o w al k byal l t r ees al ong m i l es of r oadw ay s , and undert hes e condi t i ons a document ed dr i ve- by i n s p e c t i o n s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d s a t i s f a c t o r y. A pp. at179- 83. T he 1991 gui del i nes – w hi ch expl i ci t l ys t at e thatthey “maybe us ed” – do notm andat e anypart i cul arm ethods of haza r dous t r ee i dent i fi cat i on orr emoval
. I ns t ead, theym ake sugg est i on s that Park off i ci al s ar e free t o acce pt orrej ect
. T hu s, acc or di ng t o Par k Super i nt endentJ ohn D onahue, al t hough “the P a rk h a s u se d th is g u id e lin e a s a re f e re n c e p o in t in its a ttem p t to d raf t a w o rka b le ha za rd tree m an ag em en t plan , ” the P ark offi ci al s have not“bee n abl e t o i ns t i tut e s uch a pl an. ” A pp. at 291. A l t hough t he Park Ser vi ce ha s noti ns t i tut ed a w r i t t en h a z a r d o u s t r e e ma n a g e me n tp l a n , i t s Ro a d s a n d T r a i l s c r e ws fol l ow an unw r i t t en pl an fori dent i fy i ng and r emovi ng haza r dous tr ee s in the P ark
. In a rea s o f h igh v isi tor u sag e, i
. e., w h ere peopl e ar e know n t o congr egat e and bui l di ngs ar e l ocat ed, the R oads and Tra i l s cr ew s i ns pecttr ees on foot , l ooki ng at17 i ndi vi dual t r ees . I n undevel oped, l ow us age a r eas , R oads and T r ai l s cr ew s per form “w i nds hi el d i ns pect i ons ”: w hi l e dr i vi ng t h e ys u r v e yt h e s c e n e f

o rd a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n s . I f a tr e e o rl i mb i m pedes t r aff

i c on the r oad, i s l eani ng i nt o t he r oad, overhangs t he r oad, orot herw i s e i s m ade know n t o t he cr ew as defe ct i ve, th e c re w g e ts o u t an d e x a m in e s th e tre e m o re c lo se ly . T h e re is n o s p e c if ic ro u te o r s c h e d u le f

o r w in d s h ie ld in s p e c tio n s . O n c e a P a rk S e rv ice c re w id e n tifie s a h a z a rd o u s tre e , it w i l l t a k e s t e p s t o m a n a g e th e p r o b l e m th e s a m e o rth e n e x td a y, d e p e n d in g o n th e a v a ilab ili tyo f p ro p e r e q u ip m e n t. P u rsu a n t to t he unw r i t t en pol i cy , Par k Ser vi ce c r ew s w i l l nott op tr ees and lea v e th e tru n k sta n d in g , b e c a u se a to p p e d tre e q u ick lyw ill d ie a n d b e c o m e h a z a rd o u s . I n cons i der i ng w hetherthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on pr ot ect ed the G overnm enti n t hi s cas e, the D i s t r i ct C our tl ooked t o t hr ee c as es forgui dance
. B eca us e w e, t oo, fi nd th a t th e se c a se s a re p a rticu lar lyu se f u l f o r o u r a n a ly sis , w e w ill re v iew th e m a s w e ll. I n V ar i g A i r l i nes the Supr eme C our thel d t hatthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on i m m uni zed the G overnm ent f ro m su it fo r its a lleg e d n e g lig e n c e in c e rtifyi n g tw o se p a ra te pl anes forus e i n comm er ci al avi at i on. 467 U
. S. at821, 104 S. C t
. at2768. T he G overnm enthad devi s ed a s y s t em of compl i ance r evi ew i n w hi ch i tw oul d “s pot - chec k” ai r cr aft m anufa ctur er s ’ ow n i ns pect i ons and t es t s t o es t abl i s h t hatan ai r cr aftdes i gn conform ed t o s afe t yr egul at i ons . I d. at816- 17, 10 4 S
. C t
. at27 66
. T he C ou rtst at ed thatthe p l ai nti ffs’ “cont ent i on t hatt he FA A w as negl i genti n fai l i ng t o i ns pect cert ai n el ement s of ai r cr aftdes i gn befor e ce r t i fi cat i ng the [ai r cr aft ] nece s s ar i l ychal l enges tw o as pect s of the ce r t i fi cat i on pr ocedur e: t he FA A ’ s deci s i on t o i m pl ementthe ‘ s pot - chec k’ sy ste m o f

c o m p lian c e re v iew , an d th e a p p lica tio n o f th a t ‘sp o tchec k’ s y s t em t o t he part i cul arai r cr afti nvol ved i n t hes e ca s es . ” I d. at819, 104 S. C t
. at2767. T he C our tconcl uded thatthe d iscreti o n aryfu n cti o n ex ce p ti o n im m u n ized the G o v ern m en t’ s deci s i on t o i m pl ementthe “s pot - chec k” s y s t em, and s t at ed:18 th e F A A h a s d e ter m in e d th a t a p ro g ra m o f ‘sp o tc h e c k in g ’ . . . b e st a c c o m m o d a tes th e g o a l o f a ir tra n sp o rta tio n sa f

e tya n d th e re a lityo f

f in ite agenc yr es our ces . J udi ci al i nt ervent i on i n s uch d e c isio n m a k in g th ro u g h p riv a te to rt su its w o u ld re q u ire th e c o u rts to ‘se c o n d -g u e ss ’ th e p o lit ica l, s oci al , and ec onom i c j udgm ent s of an a gency e x e rc isin g its re g u lato ryf u n c tio n . It w a s p re c ise ly t hi s s or tof j udi ci al i nt ervent i on i n pol i cym aki ng t hatt he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on w as d e sig n e d to p re v e n t. I d. at819- 20, 104 S. C t
. at2767- 68. T he C our tal s o det erm i ned t hat“the ac t s of FA A empl oy ees i n exec ut i ng the ‘ s pot - chec k’ pr ogr am i n acc or dance w i t h agenc ydi r ect i ves ar e pr ot ect ed by t he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on as w el l , ” bec aus e the em p loy ee s w ere sp e c if ica llye m p o w e re d to m a k e p o licyju d g m e n ts r egar di ng t he degr ee of confi dence thatm i ght r eas onabl ybe pl ace d i n a gi ven manufactur er , the n e e d t o ma x i mi z e c o mp l i a n c e wi t h F AA r egul at i ons , and the ef

fi ci ental l ocat i on of age ncy res ou rces . I d. at820, 104 S. C t
. at2768. I n M i t chel l v. U ni t ed St at es w e conc l uded thatthe di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on i m m uni zed the G overnm ent fr om a l aw s ui tbr oughtbya pl ai nt i ff w hos e ca rcol l i ded w i t h a co n cre te he ad -w all at th e e n d o f a d raina g e d it ch in the D elaw are Wa t e rG a p N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A r e a . 2 2 5 F
. 3 d a t3 6 6
. We found thatt he N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce’ s deci s i on abouthow and w hen t o r econs t ructt he r oad w as a di s cr et i onarydeci s i on that r equi r ed the Park Ser vi ce t o “bal ance i t s m i s s i on of pr es ervi ng t he parkl ands agai ns tt he s ever i t yof des i gn fl aw s and the d i f f e r e n tl e v e l s o f

d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f

th e r o a d
. ” I d
. a t3 6 4
. We sta ted th a t “[ t]h e S e rv ice ’s c h o ice to f o c u s o n a f

e w h ig h ly d a n g e ro u s p o rtio n s o f

th e ro a d ra th e r th a n to d istrib u te its f in ite re so u rc e s a lo n g th e w h o le o f R o u te 2 0 9 is a p o licyc h o ice th is cour ts houl d nots econd- gues s . ” I d.19 T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r th e r e a l s o c o n s i d e r e d Au t e r y , wh i c h we d iscu ssed ab o v e w h en d eterm ining w h at th e G o v ern m en t’ s conductw as t hatw as ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. I n A ut ery , as w e have not ed, a tr ee f

el l on a ca ras i tdr ove thr ough t he G r eatSm okey M ount ai n N at i onal Par k, ki l l i ng one pas s engerand i nj ur i ng another
. A tt he t i m e of the ac ci dent , the G overnm enthad an unw r i t t en pol i cyunderw hi ch i t s per s onnel w oul d conductvi s ual insp ec ti o n s o f trees w h il e d ri v ing alon g the ro ad , an d m o re cl os el yi ns pectanyt r ee thatappea r ed haz ar dous
. T he i s s ue befo re the co urtof ap peals w as “w hethercon t rol l i ng st atutes , reg u lat ion s an d ad m inistrati v e p o li cies m an d ated that the P ark S e rv ice in sp e c t f

o r h a z a rd o u s tre e s in a sp e c if ic m a n n e r. If

n o t, t hen the Park offi ci al s ’ deci s i on t o empl oya part i cul ar in sp e c tio n p ro c e d u re – a n d its e x e c u tio n o f th a t p lan – is p ro te c te d b yth e d is c re tio n a ry f u n c tio n e x c e p tio n .” Id . a t 1 5 2 8
. T he courtfound thatt her e w as no pol i cyes t abl i s hi ng a m andat or yr equi r ements o as t o depr i ve G overnm entper s onnel of di s cr et i on, and that“the i ns pect i on pl an i n eff ectatthe t i m e of th e a c c id e n t d id n o t co m p e l p a rk e m p lo y e e s to in sp e c t ce rta in t r ees on cert ai n day s orr emove a par t i cul arnum berof tr ees per w eek. ” I d. at1529. T he courtal s o not ed that“ther e w as no e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th e d istric t co u rt th a t p a rk p e rso n n e l d id notful l ycompl yw i t h t he tr ee i ns pect i on pr ocedur e. ” I d. at 1 5 3 0
. T h e c o u rtthen d eterm ined that the G o v ern m en t’ s dis cret i on arycon du ctw as suscept i ble t o p oli cyanaly si s: T o d e c id e o n a m e th o d o f in sp e c tin g p o ten tially haza r dous t r ees , and i n carr y i ng outthe pl an, the Par k Ser vi ce l i kel yhad t o det erm i ne and w ei gh the r i s k of harm fr om tr ees i n var i ous l ocat i ons , the need f orot hers afe t ypr ogr ams, the ext entt o w hi ch t he natur al s t at e of the for es ts houl d be pr es erved, and the l i m i t ed fi nanci al and human r es our ces avai l abl e. Id. at 15 3 1
. A cc o rdin g ly , the c o u rth eld th at th e d iscreti o n ary funct i on exce pt i on depr i ved i tand the di s t r i ctcour tof j ur i s di ct i on overa s ui tagai ns tthe G overnm entbas ed on the deci s i ons m ade byG overnm entper s onnel i n des i gni ng and im p le m e n tin g th e u n w ri tte n tr e e in s p e c tio n p ro g ra m in th e p a rk
. I d. at1531.20 W e conc l ude thatthe contr ol l i ng s t atut es , r egul at i ons , and pol i ci es t hatl ed t o t he cr eat i on of the Park Ser vi ce’ s unw r i t t en pl an di d notm andat e anypart i cul arm ethods of haz ar dous tr ee m anage m ent
. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, the Park Ser vi ce “ w as r es pons i bl e forchoos i ng the met hods byw hi ch i tm ai nt ai ned the Par k and pr ot ect ed i t s vi s i t or s . T he [Park Ser vi ce’ s ] deci s i ons conce r ni ng t r ee i ns pect i ons , i
. e. us i ng w i nds hi el d i ns pect i ons for l ow erus age a r eas , i nvol ved the type of j udgm entorchoi ce that t he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on pr ot ect s . ” M er ando, 2006 W L 2865486, at*6. L i ke the G overnm ent ’ s haza r dous tr ee m a n a g e m e n t p lan in A u ter y , the u n w ritten in sp e c tio n p lan in th is cas e “di d notcompel park empl oy ees t o i ns pectcert ai n t r ees on cert ai n day s orr emove a par t i cul arnum berof tr ees perw eek. ” Id. at 15 2 9
. In th ese circu m stan ce s, b o th the G o v ern m en t’ s deci s i on t o i m pl ement“w i nds hi el d i ns pect i ons ” forl ow us age ar eas of the Park and i t s s el ect i on of the met hod of exe cut i on of t hos e i ns pect i ons byPar k Ser vi ce pe r s onnel r equi r ed the exer ci s e of di s cr et i on. F u rth e rm o re , b o th th e P a rk S e rv ice ’s d e c isio n to i m pl ementt he “w i nds hi el d i ns pect i on” pr ogr am and t he e x e c u tio n o f

th o se in sp e c tio n s b yP a rk p e rso n n e l ar e su sc e p tib le t o pol i cyanal y s i s , and thus theys at i s fythe s econd pr ong of the G a u b e rt in q u iryf

o r th e G o v e rn m e n t to h a v e im m u n ityf o r its c o n d u c t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a d to c o n sid e r h o w b e st to u se its l i m i t ed fi nanci al and human r es our ces i n a mannerthatbal ance d vi s i t ors afe t yw i t h vi s i t orenj oym entand cons ervat i on of the Par k. See 16 U
. S. C
. § 1. M or eover , as i n A ut ery , the G overnm enthad t o “det erm i ne and w ei gh the r i s k of harm fr om tre e s in v a rio u s lo c a tio n s [ a n d ] th e n e e d f o r o th e r sa f

e ty program s, t he ex t ent t o w hich the n atural st at e of the forest s houl d be pr es erved, and the l i m i t ed fi nanci al and human r es our ces avai l abl e. ” 992 F. 2d at1531. M r . M er ando att empt s t o di s t i ngui s h A ut ery , cont endi ng that “[ t] h e E leve n th C ir cu itfo u n d that p ark insp ec ti o n s the re ( w i nds hi el d i ns pect i ons ) w er e notm andat ed t o be conduc t ed i n a s peci fi c manner , l i ke dai l y , unl i ke the i ns pect i ons her e, and cons equent l yhel d t hatthe exc ept i on appl i ed.
. . . H er e the w in d sh ield in sp e c tio n s w e re re q u ire d to b e c o n d u c ted o n R o u te 615 as t he cr ew s t r avel ed i tday

- t o- day , and Park pol i cy21 m andat ed thatt opped tr ees be r epor t ed forr emoval
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s r ep. br
. at7. M r. M era n d o is i n co rrect. W h il e the P ark S erv ice’s unw r i t t en pl an r equi r ed per s onnel t o s can f orhaza r dous tr ees as t heydr ove the Park’ s r oads , ther e i s no s t atut e, r egul at i on, or p o li cyd ict ati n g the s p ec ifi cs o f th at req u ir em en t; i. e., P ark Ser vi ce pe r s onnel w er e nott ol d w hen orhow oft en t o dr i ve R out e 615, orw hen t o exi tthei rvehi cl es t o conducti ndi vi dual tr e e in s p e c tio n s . T h is c a s e c le a rl yis o n a ll f o u rs w ith A u te ry. M o re o v e r, alth o u g h P a rk S e rv ice p e rso n n e l w e re re q u ire d to r epor ta haz ar dous t r ee i f theyw er e aw ar e of i t , ther e i s no e v id e n c e th a t th e ys a w th e tr e e th a t f e ll o n th e M e ra n d o s . W hethert heyw oul d have be en r equi r ed t o r epor tthe tr ee i f they h a d s e e n i tt h e r e f

o r e i s i r r e l e v a n tt o o u ra n a l y s i s . I n d e e d , we w ill a ss u m e th a t itis lik e lyth a t P a rk S e rv ice p e rso n n e l w o u ld have i dent i fi ed and r emoved t he haz ar dous tr ee i f theyhad conduct ed a c l os e- up, i ndi vi dual i ns pect i on of the tr ee a nd thus this trag ed yw o u ld n o t hav e h ap p en ed
. B u t bec au se o f th e P ark Ser vi ce’ s deci s i on t o i m pl ement“w i nds hi el d i ns pect i ons ” i n l ow us age a r eas of the Park, Par k Ser vi ce pe r s onnel di d notfi nd and r emove t he tr ee. T he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on i m m un i zes the G ov ernm ent fr om a l aw sui tbased o n these ci rcum st ances. W e a re struc k b ythe s im il arityo f P ark S erv ice’s
“ w in d sh ield in sp e c tio n s” to th e F A A ’s “ sp o t-c h e c k ” p ro g ra m in V ar i g A i r l i nes . I n bot h s i tuat i ons , the G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o “es t abl i s h pr i or i t i es forthe ac compl i s hm entof i t s pol i cy obj ect i ves bybal anci ng the obj ect i ves s oughtt o be obt ai ned agai ns ts uch pr act i cal cons i der at i ons as s t aff i ng and fundi ng. ” V ar i g A i r l i nes , 467 U
. S. at819, 104 S. C t
. at2767. L i ke the cl ai m s i n V ari g A i rl i nes, M r. M erando ’s cl ai m s i n thi s case n e c e ss a rilyc h a llen g e b o th th e P a rk S e rv ice ’s d e c isio n to i m pl ementt he “w i nds hi el d i ns pect i on” pr ogr am and t he ac t s of th e P a rk S e rv ice e m p lo y e e s in c a rry in g o u t th a t p ro g ra m . T h e ir co n d u ct he re is i n d ist ing u isha b le i n a leg al sen se f rom the F A A ’s conducti n V ar i g A i r l i nes w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d t o be pr ot ect ed byt he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on.22 M r . M er ando ar gues thatthe FA A ’ s i m pl ement at i on of th e “ sp o t ch e c k ” p ro g ra m in V a rig A irline s is d istin g u ish a b le f ro m th e P a rk S e rv ice ’s d e c isio n to im p lem e n t th e “ w in d sh ield in sp e c tio n ” p ro g ra m h e re , b e c a u se “ th e d e c isio n [ in V a rig A i rl i nes] t o u se r epresent at i ve sam ple i nspecti on s w as a res ou rce- dri ven , dis cret i on aryact , i ntent i on al l yl eaving t he v ast m a jo rityo f d e sig n s a n d in d iv id u a l p lan e s u n in sp e c ted ,” w h ile in th is c a se “ a ll o f

R o u te 6 1 5 w a s ro u tin e lyd riv e n , an d a ll o f its c o g n i z a b l e t r e e s we r e t o b e i n s p e c t e d i n th a tp r o c e s s . No
‘ s ampl i ng’ everoccurr ed, nordi d t he Park’ s empl oy ees des cr i be a pol i cyt o s ampl e byi ns pect i ng onl ycert ai n ar eas of R out e 615 as r epr es ent at i ve of the r es t
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s r ep. br
. at4- 5. M r . M er ando, how ever , has nots uffi ci ent l ydi s t i ngui s hed t hes e tw o cas es : l i ke the dec i s i on i n V ar i g A i r l i nes , the G o v e rn m e n t’s c h o ice h e re to u se “ w in d sh ield in sp e c tio n s” in l ow us age a r eas of the Park w as a di s cr et i onarydeci s i on, dr i ven b ylim ited re so u rc e s, n o t to in d iv id u a llyin sp e c t ev e ryp o ten tially haza r dous t r ee i n t he Park, even i f thatm eantthats om e haz ar ds w oul d r emai n uni dent i fi ed. T her e i s no es cape fr om the fa ctthat i n for es t ed ar eas t r ees al w ay s can f al l and pos e a da ngert o any per s on i n t he ar ea a nd i ti s notonl yent i r el yappr opr i at e that G overnm entper s onnel have di s cr et i on as t o w hattr ees t o i ns pect and how t o m ake the i ns pect i ons butnece s s arythattheyhave t hatdi s cr et i on. A ccor di ngl y , i ti s cl earthatthe exe cut i on of the
“ sp o t ch e c k ” p ro g ra m in V a rig A irline s b yF A A p e rso n n e l, w her e the per s onnel w er e “s peci fi cal l yempow er ed t o m ake p o licyju d g m e n ts,” m irro rs th e e x e c u tio n o f th e “ w in d sh ield i ns pect i on” pr ogr am bythe Park Ser vi ce i n t hi s cas e, w her e the per s onnel w er e notgi ven a s peci fi c i ns pect i on pl an mandat i ng t he part i cul art r ees t o i ns pectorthe r out es t o dr i ve. T h e P a rk S e rv ice ’s d e ter m in a tio n o n h o w to d istrib u te its f in ite re so u rc e s to lo c a te a n d re m o v e h a z a rd o u s tre e s a lso is sim il ar to the d ec isi o n the P ark S erv ice f ac ed in M it ch ell , w h ere t he Park Ser vi ce ha d t o deci de how t o i m pr ove a l ong s t r et ch of d a n g e ro u s a n d d e ter io ra tin g ro a d w a y . H e re , k n o w in g th a t it coul d noti ns pecteverytr ee i n t he Park, the Park Ser vi ce de ci ded t o expend the bul k of i t s r es our ces on hi gh- vi s i t orus e ar eas of the P ark
. L ike th e G o v ern m en t dec isi o n in M it ch ell , the P ark23 S e rv ice ’s d e c isio n in th is c a se re p re se n ts “ a p o licyc h o ice th is cour ts houl d nots econd- gues s . ” M i t chel l , 225 F. 3d at364. M r. M e ra n d o a rg u e s th a t th is c a se d if f e rs f ro m M itch e ll b e c a u se in M itch e ll “th e P a rk k n e w . . . tha t th e ro a d c u lv e rt in q u e stio n m ig h t b e a sa f e tyh a z a rd , b u t allo c a ted its f in ite re so u rc e s to o th e r, m o re p re ss in g ro a d p rojec ts,” w h ile in th is cas e “the Park di d notconce de thati tknew anyhaza r dous tr ees exi s t ed on R out e 615, cl ai m ed i tdi d notknow the t opped tr ee on R out e 615 w hi ch ki l l ed the M er andos exi s t ed, and w as not fol l ow i ng anyPar k i m pr ovement , orr es our ce pl an w hi ch pr event ed i tfr om know i ng orfr om r epor t i ng i tforr emoval
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s r ep. br
. at5- 6. M r . M er ando does notexpl ai n w hyhi s purpor t ed di s t i nct i on betw een thes e tw o cas es i s r el evantt o t he ques t i on at h a n d a n d w e th in k th a t th e d if f e re n c e in th e f

a c ts d o e s n o t cr e a te a leg a l d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th e situ a tio n s. T o sta rt w ith it w o u ld be s t r ange t o hol d t hatthe G overnm entcoul d be l i abl e for i nj ur i es caus ed bya r i s k of w hi ch i tw as unaw ar e butnotbe l i abl e forr i s k caus ed bya dange rof w hi ch i tw as aw ar e but c h o se n o t to re m e d y . If a n yth in g it m ig h t b e th o u g h t th a t co u rts w oul d r eac h t he oppos i t e r es ul t
. I n anyevent , the Park Ser vi ce knew t hateveryt r ee i n the Park coul d become haza r dous t o t he sa f e tyo f its v isito rs, e m p lo y e e s, a n d p ro p e rty , w h ich is w h yit deci ded t o i m pl ementt he i ns pect i on pr ogr am. M or eover , and co n tr aryto M r. M era n d o ’s claim in h is r ep lyb ri ef , the P ark Ser vi ce w as fol l ow i ng a “r es our ce pl an” – na m el y , i t s haza r dous t r ee managementpl an, w hi ch t ook i nt o acc ountthe r es our ces avai l abl e forl ocat i ng and r emovi ng haza r dous tr ees thr oughout th e P a rk . A s in M itch e ll, th e P a rk S e rv ice m a d e a d e c isio n to “al l ocat e[ ] i t s fi ni t e r es our ces t o other , m or e pr es s i ng [ ] pr oj ect s , ” A ppel l ant ’ s r ep. br
. at5, w hen i tdeci ded t o conduct m or e thor ough i ns pect i ons i n hi gh- us e ar eas of the Park and i m pl ementt he “w i nds hi el d i ns pect i on” pr ogr am i n t he ar ea of the P ark w h ere the tree w as lo ca ted. T h u s, M r. M era n d o ’s c laim e d d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th is c a se a n d M itch e ll i s in c o rre c t. In th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded thatt he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on i m m uni zed t he G overnm entfr om a l aw s ui tbas ed on i t s deci s i ons r egar di ng24 t he mai nt enanc e of the Park and the ca r r y i ng outof that m ai nt enanc e byt he R oads and Tra i l s cr ew . W hi l e w e r ecogni ze t hatt her e w as a t err i bl e eve ntw i t h aw ful cons equenc es her e, unfor tunat el yforM r . M er ando the court s s i m pl ydo nothave ju risd ictio n o v e r h is s u it. D
. T he N ew J er s eyL andow ner s L i abi l i t yA ct I n t he D i s t r i ctC our tand on thi s appea l , the G overnm ent also arg u ed that the c o u rt s sh o u ld d ism iss M r. M era n d o ’s compl ai ntpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) b e c a u se th e N e w Je rse yL a n d o w n e rs L iab ili tyA c t, N .J. S tat. A nn. §§ 2A : 42A
- 2 t o 10 bar s the ac t i on. I nas m uch as w e have concl uded thatbyr eas on of the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on t o t he s over ei gn i m m uni t yw ai verthe fe der al court s do nothave j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e and w e thus w i l l aff i r m the or derof O ct ober5, 2006, di s m i s s i ng thi s act i on on t hatbas i s , w e do not c o n s id e r t h e N e w J e rs e ys ta tu te
.

I V. CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the dec i s i on of t he D i s t r i ctC our tof O ct ober5, 2006. N o cos t s s hal l be t axed on th is a p p e a l.