## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1334 C HRI S TI NE B. C OLL I NS, e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 03 CV 2958

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge

. A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 19, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AY 1, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudge

. In 200 0, two sm al l pl anes col l i ded wh i l e a pp ro ac hi ng the W aukeg an Regi onal A i rpor t, wh i ch i s nea r L ak e M i chi gan no rth ofChica go, an d c r ash ed i nt o a medi ca l c en te r . The pl an es ’ o cc upants

— th e p ilotand passeng ero fo ne, the student pi l ot of th e o th er

— w er e k i l l ed, and the m edi calcent erwas d am age d. W hen the col l i si on o ccurr ed, o ne pl ane was appr o ac hi ngthe a i r po r t, i nt en di ngt o l an d, a nd the othe r pla ne, the one pil ote d by the stud en t p ilot, was2 N o. 08

- 1334 pract i ci ng ta keo ff s a nd land i ngs a nd al so i ntending to lan d . Th e a irp or t’s co n tr ol to w er h ad n o ra d ar , so th at in cl e a r i ngp l a ne s t o t a k e o ffo r l a nd the a i r t r a ffi c c o nt r o l l er on duty i n the tower had to re l y o n w hat he coul d see fro m th e tow er an d on w h at th e pilo ts to ld h im b y r ad io w er e thei r posi ti ons. The co ntro l l erwas em p loyed by M i dw estA i r Traffi c Control Se rv i ces, a contr acto r hi re d b y t h e F ed er al A via tio n A d m i n i st ra tio n to p ro vid e a ir tr affi c co ntro l atthe W aukeg an a i rpor t. The co l l i si on o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e h e c o u l d n o ts e e e i th e r p l a n e a n d t he pi l o t o fth e fi r stpl an e m i sr epo r te d hi s po si ti o n, l ea di ng th e co nt r o l l ert o b el i ev e th atthe pl an es wer e ata s afe di s t a nc e f r o m e a c h o the r ; a nd s o he c l e a r e d the m t o l and. A co nt r ibut i ngf ac tor was tha t o ne pl an e was fl y i ng sl i g ht l y h igher th anthe o th er, a nd the wi ng s o fthe hi g he r pl an e wer e be l o w the pl an e’ s fu sel ag e an d the wi ng s o fthe l o wer pl an e above its fus el ag e, s o tha t th e pi l o ts c o ul d no t se e ea cho th er . Gl ar e f r o m the s un, a nd gr ound cl utter ( the com ple x pattern f or m ed by bui l dings an d ot h er fea tu re s o f th e g ro u n d , w h ich m ak es it d ifficu lt f ora pil ot, l oo ki ng down , to se e a pl an e flying beneath hi m ) , were othe r contr ibuti ng f acto rs . A f l ur r y o fs ui ts a r i singfr o m the acc i den t wer e br o ug ht in both state an d fed era l c o u r t. A lleven tu all y w ere set tl ed except the one bef or e us, w hi ch w as bro ught ag ai nst th e Uni te d S ta te s unde r the F ede r alTo r t Cl ai m s Act bythe r epr es en ta ti ve s o fthe thr ee p er so ns who wer e k i l l ed. The dist ri ct j ud ge, aftera bench tr i al, ente re d j ud gm ent f or the Unite d Sta tes
. The A ct g ra nts the federa l co urts j uri sdic tio n o ver sui ts f ordam age s a gainst the U ni ted S tat es “f ori nj ury orN o. 08

- 1334 3 l oss o fpro perty, o r perso nal i nj ury ordeath c aused by th e n e g l i g e n t o r wr o n g fu l a c t o r o mi s s i o n o f a n y e mpl o y e e o fthe G o v e r nme ntwh i l e a c t i ngwi thi n the s c o pe of his office or em p loym en t, un d er c ircum stan ces w he re the Unite d Sta tes , i fa pri vate per son, would be lia b l e t o the cl ai m ant i n acco rdance w i th the l aw of th e p l ace w he re the ac t or om issi on occu rred

. ” 28 U
. S. C

. § 1346(b)(1). ( Tha t pl ac e, i n thi s ca se, is Il l i no i s. ) An e m pl o y ee o fthe go ve rn m en t in c lu d es “e m p loy ee s o fan y fe d er al a ge n c y,” su cha s th e F ede r alAvi at i o n Adm i ni st r ati o n, b ute xcl ude s “ a nyc o nt r a c t o r wi th the Uni t e d S t a t e s . ” § 2 6 7 1. M i dwes t AirTr affi c Con tr o l S er vi ce s is a con tr ac to r, a nd the di str i ct j u d ge r u l ed that al though the FAA exer ci ses cl ose superv i si on o verthe com panie s to w hi ch it contr acts out ai r tr affi c co ntro l, t h e s up er vi si on i s no t cl ose eno ugh to re nd ercontro l l er s e m plo yed by tho se com panie s empl o y ee s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. S o th o ug h he f o und th at th e a irt r affi c co nt r o l l ero n duty the da y o fthe acci dent had b ee n n egl i gent i n cl ear i ng the pl anes to l and w hen he co uld notse e them , the j ud ge re fused to i m pu te that negl i gence to the U ni ted S tat es. The pla i nti ff s a l so conte nd ed th at the F A A had bee n negl i gent i n f ai l i ng to i nstal l r adar at the W aukeg an ai rpor t. But th is gr ou nd o fl i abi l i ty, the j ud ge rul ed, was bl o ck ed be ca us e th e ac t “s ha l l no t appl y t o a ny cl ai m . . . b ased upo n the e xe r ci se o r pe r f o r m an ce o r the f ai l ure to exer ci se orp er form a disc re ti onar y functi on orduty o n the partyof a fe deralagency . . . wh ethero r not th e d iscretion involved be abu sed

. ” 28 U
. S. C

. § 2680(a). B e f o r e we c a n c o n s i d e r th e me r i t s o fth e appe al, we m us t addr es s th e g o ve r nm en t’ s co nt ention th atthe4 N o. 08

- 1334 di st r i ctc o ur t l o sts ubj ec t- m at te r juri sdi ct i o n o ve r the ca se wheno n the e ve o ft r i alM i dwes t se tt l ed th e plai nti ff s’ cl ai m s a ga in st i t. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , a pri nci pal w hose l i abi l i ty i s ba sed o n the do ctr i ne o fr espondeat su p er ior, wh i ch i s M i dw est ’ s s i tuati on, cannotbe sued i fth e ag en t whose neg l i gence i s i m pu ted to the pri nci pal bytha t do ct r i ne

— i n thi s c as e th e a i r tr affi c co ntro l l er w ho was on du ty w hen the col l i si on o ccurr ed

— set tl es w i th th e p lain tiff. Gil b e r tv. Sy ca m or eM uni cipal H os pi t al , 62 2 N .E .2d 78 8, 79 7 (Ill. 19 93 ); D oe v. City o f C hicago , 36 0 F
. 3d 66 7, 67 3 (7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4) (Illin ois law ); J &JTimbe rCo. v. B r o o me, 932 So. 2d 1 , 7 -8 (M iss . 200 6); Res t at e m e nt( Thir d) of Torts : App orti onm entof Li abil ity§ 1 6, c o m m en t d a nd illu st ra tio n 2 (20 00 ); con tr a, H a rris v. M iller, 43 8 S

. E.2 d 731, 74 1-4 2 (N .C . 199 4). T h e re as on is t h a t t h e p rin c ip al in such a case has a co m m on l aw r i ght t o be ind em n ified b y h is a ge n t. Washington Ga sl ight Co. v. D is tr ict of Co lum bia , 16 1 U .S. 31 6, 32 8 (1 89 6); St e e l e v . H ar t f or d F i r eIns . Co. , 7 8 8 F.2d 44 1, 44 6 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); S t a wa s z v . Ae t n a In s . Co. , 240 N .E. 2d 702, 70 3- 04 ( I l l

. A pp . 19 68)
. That r i ght a ro se as an exce pti on t o the tra dit i onalco m m on l aw r ule r ej ecting con tribution am ong j oint tortfeasors

— th ati fthe pla i nti ff sued and o btai ned a j ud gm ent aga i nst j ust one of th e j o i ntt o r tfea so r s, tha t o ne c o ul d no t su e to f o r ce the ot h er s t o h e l p p ay th e jud gm en t. N or t hwe s tAi r l i ne s v. Tran s por t at i on Worke rs U ni on , 451 U .S. 77, 86 (1 98 1); D onovan v. Rob b i ns , 75 2 F. 2 d 1 1 7 0 , 11 7 8

- 7 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; Da n B. D ob b s, The Law of Torts § 3 86 , pp. 1 07 8- 80 ( 20 00 )
. The tr ad itio n al ru le ha s be en ab ro ga te d in m os t jur isd ict ion s in f avo r ofco ntributi on, but i nd em ni ty re tai ns si gn ifi cance because it s h ifts the e nti re l oss to the tor tfeas orhel d toN o. 08

- 1334 5 have a duty t o i nd em ni fy, ratherthan shar i ng out the l oss am ong the t or tfeas or s. The re aso n f or thi s s hi fti ng, i n the case i n w hi ch an em plo yer ’ s l i abi l i ty i s based on the doctri ne ofr espondeat superi or, i s that the em plo yee i s i n a b et terposi ti on than his em p loy erto avo i d i nfl i cti ng the i nj ury that i nci ted the s uitag ai nst the em plo yer. A ll owing the e m plo yerto sh ift the full finan c ialresp ons ibi li ty for th e em p loyee’s negl i gence to the em plo yee i ncre ase s the l att er ’ s i ncenti ve to tak e ca re , and hi s ca re i s cr uci albec ause i fhe t ake s du e ca re , an a cci dent w i l l be aver ted thatthe em p l oye r m i ght no t hav e be en abl e t o aver t. Butthe righto fi nde m ni tymake s a se tt l ementb y the em plo yee with the to rtpl ai nti ffi l l usor y i fthe em ployer r emai ns l i able to the pl ai nt i ff

. M i dwes t se tt l ed wi ththe pla i nti ff s f orl ess than a m i l l i on d olla rs . The pl ai nti ff s’ agg re gat e i nj ury w as m uch gr eat er, wh i ch i s why they ar e s uingthe U n ited S tat es despit e the se ttl em ent with M id w es t. If (a b ig if, as w e’r e a b ou t t o s ee ), M id w es t is d ee m ed th e “em p loy ee ” of th e U n ite d St at es , th en , w er e it not f o r the r ul e tha te xt i ngui s he s the p r i nc i pa l ’ s l i a b i l i ty when th e ag en t se tt l es , M i dwes t w ou ld be f ac ed wi ththe pros pect of a sui t f or i nd em ni ty by the U ni ted S tat es s h o u l d th e p l a i n t i ff s o b t a i n d a mag e s i n th e i r t o r tc l a i ms sui t. I fthe sui t s ucceeded, M i dw est w oul d have g ai ned nothi ng fro m se ttl i ng with the Unite d Sta tes ’ ag ent. The parti es to the s ett l em ent with M idw estse em to ha ve b ee n a war e o fthe r ul e th ata s et tl em en t w ith the ag en t di sc ha r g es the pr i nc i pal, b ec au se the y st at ed i n the set tl em ent a gr eem ent that the ag re em ent was nota set
-6 N o. 08

- 1334 tl em ent. But i t was , b ec au se ine xc ha ng e f o r a pa y m en t b y M id w es t t h e p lain tiffs relin q u ish ed th eir cla im aga i nst M i dw est
. That’ s what a s ett l em ent i s, r ega rdl ess o fwhatthe pa r ti es c al l i t. Butth e r ul e di sc ha r g i ngthe pr i nc i palha s no pr o p er appl i ca ti o n h er e be ca us e th e govern m e n t, w he n it i s held l iable und er the Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act, ha s no r i g hto f ind emni tyfr o m i ts ne g l i g en t e m p l o y ee . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gi l m an , 34 7 U.S

. 50 7, 50 8- 10 (19 54 ); G re go ry C . Sisk, Li t igat i on w ith t heFe de r al Gove r nm e nt§ 3. 04( e) , pp. 122- 23 ( 4th e d. 2006 ) ; se e a l so M uns on v. U nited Sta tes , 380 F.2d 97 6, 97 8 (6 th C ir. 19 67 ); R e s t a tem ent( Second) of

To rts § 8 9 5 D, c o mm e ntj ( 1 9 7 9 )
. I nd e e d, b e c a us e the Wes t f a l l Ac t, 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 6 7 9 ( b ) ( 1 ) , f o rb i ds b r i n g i n ga s u i ta g a i n s ta fe d e r a l e mp l o y e e f o r c o mm itt in g a “n eg lige n t o r w ro n gfu l ac t or o m iss ion
. . . w h ile ac ting wi th i n th e sc o pe o f hi s o ffi ce o r empl o y m en t, ” the gov er nm ent has m ade i tse l fexcl usi vel y l i abl e f orsuch to rt s, and by doi ng so , i t ca n be ar gued, has deter m i ned th a tth e e mpl o y e e s h o u l d b e a r n o l i a b i l i t y h i ms e l f, i nc l u d i n gth e i n d i r e c tl i a b i l i t y th a tth e d o c t r i n e o fi n d e mn ity w ou ld cr ea te . See Sisk, sup ra , at12 3. G r a n t e d , Mi d we s t, th e s e t t l i n gp a r t y , w a s n o ta n e mp loy ee of th e U n i t e d S ta te s, ev en if th e e rra n t a ir tr affic co nt r o l l eri s dee m ed to ha ve b een on e. Butthe g o ve r nm ent woul d have no ri ght ofindem ni ty ( unle ss as a m att er o fc o nt r a c t, wh i c h has no tb e e n s ug g e s t e d) a g a i ns tMi dwes t ev eni fM i dwes t wer e d eem ed ane m pl o y ee o fthe U n ite d Sta te s. Fo r re m em b er th at th e rig h t t o b e in d em n ifi ed i s ba se d o n th e di ff er en ce be twe en di r ec t an d v i ca r i o us l i abi l i ty

— th e l i ab i l i tyo fa pers on w ho c o m m i ts a t o r ti o us act ver sus the l i abi l i ty ofhi s e m plo yerj u st by vi rtue o fN o. 08

- 1334 7 bei ng hi s e m plo yer . M i dw est ’ s l i abi l i ty ar i ses fro m i ts bei ng the em plo yero fthe ai r tr affi c co ntro l ler . I ts l i ab i l i ty, l i k e th ato fthe Uni te d S tates , is vi ca r i o us . The sy m m et r y o fthe t wo de f en dan ts ’ po si ti ons d ef ea ts the gov er nm ent’ s a pp ealto the indem ni ty rul e, w hi ch i s ba sed on the super i or abi l i ty ofthe age nt wh o com m i ts the t or t t o have avo i ded co m m i tti ng i t bythe ex er c i se ofdue car e, com pared to hi s e m plo yer, wh o i s l i abl e f or the t or t o nl y b y vi r tu e o fb eingthe o r i g i na l t o r tfea so r ’ s empl o y er . The parti es coul d ofco urse by co ntra ct i m po se a d uty o f i n d e m n ity in s u c h a c as e, R es tate m ent( Third) of Agency § 3
. 15, co m m ent d and i l l ustr ati on 9 ( 2006 ) , but re m em ber that ther e i s no sugg est i on o fsuch a contra ctualpro vi si on i n th i s c a s e . T h e d o c t r i n e a p p l i c a b l e h e r e i s “ t o r ti n d e mni ty , ” i mp o s e d b y l a w r a th e r th a n b y c o n t r a c t, p e r ha ps to soften the r i gor s o fthe ol d rul e denying a r i ght o f c on tr ibu tio n am on g join t t or tfe as or s. Z apico v. B ucyrus -Erie Co. , 57 9 F
. 2d 714, 71 8- 19 ( 2d Cir

. 19 78) ( Fr i endly, J
. ) ; se e al so A raujo v. Wood s H ole, 693 F.2d 1, 2 (1st C ir. 1982); W . Pa ge K ee to n etal., P ross erand Kee ton on theLaw of Torts § 51, p p . 341-42 (5th ed

. 1984). Eve n i fthe g o v e r nme ntwe r e r i g httha tthe s e t t l em en t w ith M idw est h ad disch arged the gove r nm en t’s liab ility t o t h e p lain tiffs , i t w ou ld be w ro n g t o in sis t, as it d id w ith so m e v ehem ence at the o ra l ar gum ent, thati t is an i ssu e of j urisd ictional m om en t. T he govern m en t’s l a wy e r fu r th e r a r g u e d th a tth e r ul e s i n th e T o r tC l a i ms Act i ts el ftha t ba r g o ve r nm en t l i ab i l i tywhene i ther the or i gi nal tort f eas ori s a n i nd ependent contr acto r, r ather than an em plo yee , o r the g overnm ent’ s a ct i s s hi el ded by the di scr eti onar y- functi on e xcepti on t o l iabil i ty, ar e a l so8 N o. 08

- 1334 j ur i sdi ct i o na l

. Thi s woul d m ea n tha t ev eni fthe g o ve r nm ent f ai l ed to r ai se any o fthes e defenses , the distri ct cour t a nd thi s co urt ( and the S up re m e Cour t, i fthe case w ent that f ar ) would be obl i ged to c on sider i t. ( I nconsi ste nt l y , the g o ve r nm en t as k s us m erely t o a ffi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i sion, whi chwas a de ci si o n o n the m er i ts, nota deci si on di sm i ssi ng the cas e fo r w an t o f j u ris d ict ion .) The go ver nm en t w as re peati ng ar gum ents that w e had r ej ec te d e m pha ti ca l l y i n Uni t e d S t at e s v . Co okCo unty, 16 7 F
. 3d 38 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) , a nd mor e r ec en tl y i n Parrot tv. U nited Sta tes , 53 6 F
. 3d 629, 63 4- 35 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ; se e a l so P a la y v . U nited Sta tes , 34 9 F
. 3d 418, 424 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. N ow i t i s t rue that ou rs is a m i nor i ty posi ti on, se e Lou ghl i n v . U nited Sta tes , 3 93 F.3d 15 5, 16 2-6 3 (D .C . C ir. 20 04 ); Wi l l i a ms v. U n i ted S ta tes , 50 F .3d 29 9, 30 4-0 5 (4 th C ir. 19 95 ); Faziv. U nited Sta tes , 935 F.2d 53 5, 53 9 (2 d C ir. 19 91 ); Feye rs v. U nited Sta tes , 749 F.2d 12 22 , 122 5-2 6 ( 6 t h C ir. 19 84 ), an d it i s al so t r ue tha t ou r op i ni o n i n Palaya c k n o wl e d g e s s o me w aver i ng i n o uro wn c a s e s . 3 4 9 F
. 3 d a t4 2 4
. Bu tthe c a s es that hol d that defenses to the gov er nm ent’ s l i abi l i ty und er the Tort Clai m s A ct ar e j uri sdic ti onal do not so m uch an al y ze the i ss ue as tr ea t i t a s a n aut o m at i c co r o l l ar y ofthe A ct’s con stitut ing a w aiver of th e fede ra l govern m en t’s sov er ei gn im m unity fro m sui t. W e ca nnot s ee w hat that has t o do w i th j uri sdic ti on. Beca use o fi ts sov er ei gn i m m unity, the f edera l gov er nm ent does not have to al l ow peopl e t o sue i t. But al m ostal l st atute s that cre ate a ri ght t o su e are m atters of grace, in t h e s e ns e tha t the l egislature was no t r equi r ed to en ac t th e st atut e unde r whi chthe p lain tiffi s su in g. “[W ]h at so ve re ign im m u n ity m ea n s isN o. 08

- 1334 9 that re lief aga i nst the U ni ted S tat es depend s o n a s tatute; th e qu estion is not th e com p eten ce of the cou rt to rend er a bi nd i ng j ud gm ent, but the pr opri ety of i nter preting a g i ven sta tute to al l ow p ar ti cul arr el i ef

. ” U ni ted St at e s v. Cook, sup ra , 16 7 F
. 3d at 389. A co ur t ha s su bj ec t- m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n i fi t ha s th e “author i ty to deci de the case ei therway. ” The Fa ir v. Ko hler D i e& Sp e ci al ty Co. , 2 28 U
. S. 22 , 25 ( 1913 ) ( H ol m es, J
. ) ; se e al so He i t m ann v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 20 09 W L 76415 5, at* 2 ( 7th C ir. M ar . 25, 20 09 ); K irch er v. P utn a m Fu n d s Trust, 373 F.3 d 84 7 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); Ric ke t t s v. M i dwe s tNat i onal Bank, 874 F. 2d 1177, 11 81 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)
. The te rm is t h u s reser ved “f orpre scr i pti ons deli neati ng the cl ass es of case s . . . w i thi n a cour t’ s a dj ud i cato ryautho ri ty. ” K ontri ck v . R yan , 5 40 U. S

. 4 43 , 4 55 ( 20 04 )
. ( Thi s emphat i c r ec en t restate m en t by th e Sup re m e C o urt of th e princ iple of The F ai rv . Ko hl e rDi e& Sp e c i al ty Co
. m ay pr o m p t a rethi nk i ng b y t h e c ou rt s t h at h av e d ec lin ed to ap p l y th e p rin c ip le to fed er al t or t c laim s c as es .) Thu s, “ to say thatCongr ess has author i zed the f edera l cour ts to deci de a c lass ofdi sputes i s t o say thatsubj ectm att erj uri sdic ti on i s pre sent. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . T & W E d m i e rC o rp ., 46 5 F .3d 76 4, 76 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). O b vio u sly the federa l co urts ar e a uthor i zed to deci d e su its und er th e Fed eral Tort C lai m s A ct; i nd ee d , no oth er cou rt syste m i s. 28 U
. S. C

. § 1346(b)(1). We tu r n a t l as tt o th e me r i t s , wh e r e th e r e a r e t wo i ssues . The fi rs t i s whether the F A A exer ted eno ugh cont ro l ove r M i dw est ’ s a i r contr ol l er s t o m ake them de f acto fed er al e m p loy ee s. T h is iss u e w as rec en tl y a d d re ss ed in10 N o. 08

- 1334

a nea rly i denti calcas e, i nvol vi ng ano therm i dairco l l i si on t o w h i c h th e n e g l i g e n c e o f a n a i r t r a ffi c c o n t r o l l e r e mp l o y e d b y Mi d we s t wa s a l l e g e d t o h a v e c o n t r ib u t e d

. We hel d that, exte nsi ve though the contro l o fthe FA A o ver i ts contr act contr ol l er s i s, theyar e no t i ts em plo yee s. A linsky v. U nite d Sta tes , 415 F.3d 639 ( 7th Cir. 2005). W e dec l i ne t o r ev i si t th atde ci si o n. The s ec o nd i ss ue i s th e appl i cabi l i tyt o thi s ca se o fthe di sc r e t i o n a r y - fu n c t i o n e x c e p t i o n t o th e l i a b i l i t y o fthe f edera l go ver nm ent f orto rtcl ai m s. TA RD I S, an a cronym f or“T er m i nal A utom ate d Rad arDis pla y Info rm ati on Sy st em ,” is a n ine x p en siv e ra d ar sy st em d es ign ed fo r air tr affi c co nt r o l

. Al th o ug h i t has n o t be enc er ti fi ed bythe FA A bec ause i t has n’tundergo ne the st ri ngent tes ts for ac c ur a c y r e qu i r e d f o r c e r t i fi c a t i o n, we ’ l l a s s ume tha thad the c ontr olto w er at the W aukeg an Regi onalA i rpor t be en equi pp ed w i th TA RD I S the col l i si on w oul d hav e been av er te d. The F AA , pa r tl y b ec au se o fdo ubt s ab o ut TA RD IS’s accuracy and part l y b ecause i t pr efer re d to fi na nce o therr adar- sys tem proj ects , deci ded notto try t o equ ip VFR ( “vi sualfl i ght r ule s”

— th at is, not rad arequ ip p ed ) ai rpor ts, such a s the W aukeg an Regi onal A i rpor t, cheap as TA RD I S w as ( though j ust ho w cheap is unc lear from the record

— th e ra n ge of es tim at es is $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 t o $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) , e v e n th o u g h o th e r r a d a r s y s t e ms w er e no t y et avai l abl e i n 200 0. I n m aki ng deci si ons on e quipm en t al l oca ti on f or ai r po r ts , the F AA c o ns i der s a var i ety off ac to r s, i nc l udi ng th e v olum e o f air traffi c at th e airport, th e variety of aircraft that use the airp ort, te rr ai n and cl i m ate , co st, o fco urse ,N o. 08

- 1334 11

an d , rel ated to cost, com p e t in g nee d s for th e agen cy’s l i m i te d funds

. At the t i m e o fthe a cc i den t, o nl y e i g ht ai r po r ts ha d TARDI S

. The di stric t j udg e th o ug htthe FA A had bee n negl i gent i n f ai l i ng t o in st al l TA RD I S at th e W au k eg ana i r po r t be ca us e o fthe da ng ero fcoll i si o ns at an a irp ort fro m wh i ch pl anes pil ote d by s tudent pil ots are tak i ng o ffand l anding, and the hor re nd ous c onse que nc es o f a co l l i si o n. Ev ens o , he was r i g httha t th e F AA ’ s ne g l i g en ce was s hi el ded f r o m l iabi l i tyb y the d isc re tio n ar y-fu n c tio n ex c ep tio n . T h e p rior itiz at ion of d em an d s fo r go ve rn m en t m on ey is q u in te ss en tia lly a d isc re tio n ar y fu n c tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. V a rig A irlines , 46 7 U.S

. 79 7, 81 9- 20 ( 1984 ); C o p e v. Scott, 45 F.3 d 44 5, 45 0-5 1 (D .C . C ir. 19 95 ); Wi l l i am s v. U ni t e d S t at es , 50 F.3d 29 9, 31 0 (4 th C i r . 199 5); P enn ba nkv. U nited Sta tes , 77 9 F
. 2d 17 5, 1 80 ( 3d Ci r . 1 98 5) ( “a de ci si o n r eg ar d in gthe al l ocat ion of f edera l fund s i s a di scr eti onar y functi on whi chg o es t o the he ar t of gove r nm en ta l a ct i vi ty ”)
. The F AA musta l l o ca te i ts l i m i te d funds a m o ngc o m pet i ng ra dar s yst em s, bet w een r adar sys tem s a nd othersa f ety m etho ds, and bet w een s afetym eas ures and m eas ures f or i m proving o therdi m ensi ons ofai r tr affi c co nt ro l, such as r edu ci ngthe de l ay s ca us ed byc r o wded s k i es . The age ncy m i ght pr i or i ti ze so unreas onabl y that i ts deci si on c ou ld be ad j u d ge d n eg lige n t, bu t t h e T or t C laim s A c t is expli ci t that o nce a deci si on is c l ass i fi ed as an exer ci se ofdi scr eti on, the f act that the disc re tio n w as abused o r eve n not exer ci sed atal l i s i rr el evant
. W hi ch i s wh y i ti s i r r e l e v a nttha ts o me o fthe V FR a i r po r t s th a tr e c e i v e d T AR D I S w e r e o n e s i n w h i c h me m-12 N o. 08

- 1334 ber s o fCongr ess had ask ed the FA A t o in st allthe sys tem an d o th er s wer e o ne s i n whi chthe o nl y r ea so n for the i ns ta l l at i o n ap p ears t o ha ve b ee n tha t th er e ha d b ee n a c ollis ion , reg ar d les s o f th e ris k of fu tu re co llision s. It m ay n ot b e righ t in so m e m or al sen se , b u t it i s c e r t a i n ly an exam p le ofdiscret ion a r y d ecision m aking, f or a fede ral agen cy to give w eight to requ ests fro m m em bers o fCo ng r es s, a nd a l so t o sh ut the b ar n do o r a fte r the ho r se s ha ve es ca ped. The fi r stpo i nti s o bv i o us , the s ec o nd onl y s l i ghtl y l ess so . I fther e has bee n a c ol l i si on at an ai r po r t, a r a d a r s y s t e m i s n o ti n s t a l l e d i n th e wa k e o ft he c o l l i s i o n, a n d th e n th e r e i s a n o th e r c o l l i s i o n, th e F AA wi l l r ec ei ve s ea r i ng c riti ci sm ev eni fi t ca n s ho w tha t th e fi rst co l l i si o n r ea l l y was n’ t pr edi ct i ve o ffut ur e co l l i si o ns at that ai rpor t. A gai nst thi s r eas oni ng the pl ai nti ff s ci te U nit e d S t at e s v. G a ubert, 4 9 9 U
. S

. 3 1 5 , 3 2 5 n . 7( 1 9 9 1 ) , w h e r e th e S up r e me Court sai d that “ there ar e o bvi ousl y di scr eti onar y a cts per form ed b y a Go ve r nm en t ag en t th ata r e wi th i n the scop e of his em p loym en t bu t not w ithin th e d iscretionary functi on e xcepti on be cau se these act s ca nnot be sa i d to b e b a s e d o n th e p u r p o s e s th a tth e r e g ul a t o r y r e g i me se ek s t o a c c om p l i s h

. If on e o f th e o fficia ls in vo lve d in thi s ca se drove an a utom obi le on a m i ssi on co nnected w i th hi s o ffi ci alduti es and negl i gentl y c ol l i ded with anothe r car, the excepti on would notapply

. A l though dr i vi ngr equi r es the c o ns ta ntexerci se o fdi sc r et i o n, the offi ci al ’ s deci si ons i n exer ci si ng tha t di scr eti on ca n hardl y b e s ai d to be g ro und ed i n re gul ato rypol i c y.” Si m i l ar l y, “i f the em plo yee vi ol ate s [ a] m andator y r egul ation, th ere w il l be n o shelter from l ia bil ity becau se th ereN o. 08

- 1334 13 i s no r oo m f orchoi ce a nd the acti on w ill b e co ntra ryto pol i cy. ” Id . at 3 24 . Th e p lain tiffs rea so n from th is l an g ua g e th atthe F AA i s n ot pr o te ct ed bythe di s c r e t i o na r y - fun c t i o n e xc e pt i o n i n the pr e s e ntcas e because pri or itiz in g in r es p on se t o congr ess i onal press ures and the occur re nce o fa previ ous c oll i si on does not furtherthe pu rpos es ofthe re gul ato ryr egi m e. The pla i nti ff s a re o ver re ading G a ubert

. I t is tru e tha t ifa sta tute orr egulati on o r othe r dir ecti ve i ntended to be bi nd i ng f orbi ds the speci fi c ac t con tended to have been negl i gent, the em plo yee wh o com m i tte d the act was not ex er c isin g au th or ize d d isc re tio n . R eyn o lds v. U nited Sta tes , 54 9 F .3d 11 08 , 1 1 1 2 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ). A n d likew ise if h is ex er c ise o fdi scr eti on had no pol i cy conte nt. S up pose a f ede r alf o o d i ns pec to r, whi l e dr i vi ngto a mea t- pr o ce ss i ng pl an t th athe i s requ ire d t o ins pec t, de ci des t o r un a r ed l i g htb ec au se he fea r s tha t i fhe s to ps ab r upt l y the carbeh in d h im wil l hi t hi m and he does n’tse e a nother ca r ap p roa ch i ngthe i nt er se ct i o n. Buthe i s m i st ak ena nd th e cars colli d e (and h is c a r i s also hit from the rear, an y way )
. He made a co ns ci o us c ho i ce t o r un the l i g hta nd so w as exer ci si ng di scr eti on, but it w as an exer ci se unrel ate d t o the f or m ula ti on a nd i m ple m entat i on o fthe Feder al Foo d, Drug, and Cosm eti c A ct. Invo ki ng the di scr eti onar yfunc ti o n de f en se i n s ucha c as e woul d no t se r ve i ts i ntended pu rpos e of prot ecting the di scr eti onar y pol i cy related de c i s i o ns o ffe de r a l o ffi cer s fr o m be i ngs e c o nd

guess ed by j ud ges . But the deci si on t o i nstal l TA R D I S at so m e ai r po r ts b utno t o the r s, the o th er s i nc l udi ngthe W aukeg an ai rpor t, was a di scr eti onar y pol i cy j u d gm ent, w hethero r not w e thi nk the FA A should al l ow i tse l fto be14 N o. 08

- 1334 i nfl uenced by congr ess i onal or pu bl i c opi ni on, c f. U nited S t a tes v. G a ubert, sup ra , 499 U .S. at 3 22 -23 ; M i l l e rv. U ni ted Sta tes , 16 3 F
. 3d 591 , 5 93 -94 ( 9th Ci r. 19 98) , and i t was th e r e f o r e b e h i n d th e li a b i l i t y s h i e l d

. Ali nsky v . U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 41 5 F
. 3d at 648. A FFI RMED .

5- 1- 09