# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 20 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
M a r y A n n M e t t e r , a s P e r s o n a l R e p r e s e n

t a t i v e o f t h e E s t a t e o f E d w a r d O

. M e t t e r , D e c e a s e d

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 20 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ju st in Erick so n a nd Jen ni fer Eri ck so n, Hu sb an d a nd W ife

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 15 Fi le d: May 11, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

On Octo be r 9, 20 11
, whi le fis hi ng wit h hi s so n- in -la w an d g r a n d s o n ne ar Gav in s Po in t Dam on th e Mi ss ou ri Ri ve r in Ced ar Co un ty, Neb ras ka
, Edwar d Met te r

was tra gi cal ly st ru ck an d ki ll ed whe n a pa rk ed pi ck up tru ck cam e ou t of ge a r an d

ro ll ed do wn an un pr ot ect ed riv er ba nk

. Mar y Ann Me t t e r , Met te r’s wid ow an d

pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of hi s es ta te , br ou gh t su rv iv al an d wro ng fu l de at h act io ns

un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 46 , 26 71 -2 68 0, agai ns t th e U.S. Arm

y Co rp s of Eng in eers (Co rp s)
, as se rti ng th e Co rp s ne gl ig en tl y

m ai nt ai ne d th e si te

. The gr an ds on , Ju st in Eric ks on , an d hi s wife
, Je nn ife r Eric ks on , br ou gh t a se pa rat e su it ag ai ns t th e Co rp s rai si ng th e sa m e th eo rie s of li ab il it y fo r th e

m en ta l an d ph y si cal ha rm s to Ju st in cau se d by wit ne ss in g hi s gr an df at he r’s de at h an d

an y l o s s e s s u ffer ed by Je nn ife r. The Co rp s fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s, or in th e al te rn at iv e, fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Co rp s’ m ot io n to 1
di sm is s th e cl ai m s un de r Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(1 ) fo r la ck of su bjec t

m at te r juri sd ic ti on , f

in di ng (1 ) th e cl ai m s wer e ba rred by t he FTCA’s di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on , an d (2 ) th e Uni te d St at es di d no t waiv e so ve re i g n im m un it y

. 2
Mar y Ann an d t he Erick so ns (co ll ect iv el y , app el la nt s) ap pe al . W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

. The di st ric t co ur t al so gr an te d th e Co rp s’ m ot io n to su bs ti tu t e th e Uni te d 2 St at es as de fen da nt

. See Dun can v. Dep ’t of Lab or , 31 3 F.3 d 44 5, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (p er cu ria m ).

-2

-I. BACKGRO UND

A po pu la r sp ot fo r f

i sh in g, Gav in s Po in t Dam
, la ke
, an d as so ci at ed faci li ti es

are op erat ed an d m an ag ed by th e Om ah a Dis tri ct of th e Co rp s. Gua rd rai ls li ne m os t of th e pa rk in g area s al on g Tra i ni ng Dik e Ro ad whe re Met te r was ki ll ed

. Due to hi st or ic flo od in g be gi nn in g in May 20 11
, th e Co rp s rem ov ed two se ct io ns of

gu ard rai l in Ju ne 20 11 to al lo w he av y eq ui pm en t acce ss to th e riv er sh or el in e an d to faci li ta te on go in g flo od -rel at ed rep ai rs , cl os in g th es e area s fo r pu b l i c u s e

. Dav id
Bec ke r, th e Co rp s’ Ope rat io ns Pro ject Man ag e r , in sp ect ed th e rem ai ni ng woo de n
gu ard rai l po st s an d de te rm in ed th ey ne ed ed to be rep la ced

. On Aug us t 30
, 20 11
, th e Co rp s h i red C.B.M.C
., a Ten ne ss ee co nt ract or , to in st al l ne w gu ard rai l po st s by Sep te m be r 30 , 20 11

.

On Se pt em

be r 19 , C.B.M.C. as su red th e Co rp s i t wo ul d c om pl et e th e p ro

ject
th e fo ll owi ng w e e k

. I n an at te m pt to red uc e co nt ract co st s an d m eet th e pl an ne d Sep te m be r 30 de ad li ne , Co rp s pe rs on ne l rem ov ed th e rem ai ni ng gu ard rai ls an d po st s

on Sep te m

be r 28

. Bec ke r te st ifi ed th e Co rp s reo pe ne d th e area al on g th e riv er to th e
pu bl ic
, bu t di d no t po st pa rk in g res tri ct io ns or pu bl ic ad vi so rie s be cau se he be li ev ed

rem ov al of t he gu ard rai ls di d n ot en da ng er th e pu bl ic

. Des pi te th e Co rp s’ rep eat ed

at te m pt s to co nt act C.B.M.C

. be twee n Sep te m be r 26 an d Octo be r 7, C.B.M.C

. di d no t
p e rfo rm as pr om is ed

. The fat al acci de nt oc cu rred on Octo be r 9, be fo re th e Co rp s
te rm in at ed C.B.M.C .’ s co nt ract an d re-a ward ed th e pr oject to anot he r co nt ract or

. The

ne w con tra ct or

rep la ced th e g ua rd rai ls be fo re No ve m be r 30

.

The ap pe ll an ts br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t th e Co rp s un de r th e FTCA, al l e g i n g th e acci de nt oc cu rred as a res ul t of th e Co rp s’ ne gl ig en ce in fai li ng to (1 ) “ ti m el y rep la ce th e gu ard rai l an d po st s al on g th e pa rk in g area on Trai ni ng Dik e Ro ad ,” (2 ) “ m ak e a

reas on ab le in sp ect io n o f th e pa rk in g area ,” (3 ) “ m ai nt ai n a reas on ab ly s afe pa rk in g

area ,” an d (4 ) “wa r n[ ] th e pu bl ic of th e ha zard ou s co nd it io n th at ex is te d on th e
pa rk in g area .” Th e Co rp s m ov ed to di sm is s th e cas e on juri sd ic ti on al gr ou nd s,
arg ui ng it s de ci si on s rel at in g to th e rem ov al an d re-i ns ta ll at io n of th e gu ard rai ls were

-3

-p ro te ct ed by th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to th e FTCA. The di st ric t co u r t

ag reed an d g ran te d t he m ot io n, an d a pp el la nt s ap pe al

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

“ It is well se tt le d th at th e Uni te d St at es m ay no t be su ed wit ho ut it s co ns en t,”
Hin sl ey v. St an di ng Ro ck Ch il d Pro te ct iv e Serv s., 51 6 F.3 d 66 8, 67 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), bu t u nd er t he FTCA, an in jure d p art y

can ho ld th e Uni te d S ta te s l ia bl e in to rt

fo r in jury or lo ss of pr op ert y , or pe rs on al in jury or de at h c au se d b y

th e

ne gl ig en t or wro ng fu l act or om is si on of an y em pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t whi le act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s of fic e or em pl oym en t,

un de r ci rcu m st an ces whe re th e Uni te d St at es , if a pr iv at e pe rs on , wou ld be li ab le to th e cl ai m an t in acco rd an ce with th e la w of th e p la ce wh ere th e act or o m is si on oc cu rred

.

28 U.S.C. § 13 46 (b )(1 ). Howev er, 28 U.S.C. § 26 80 (a)— co m m on ly refe rred to as th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to th e FTCA—p ro hi bi ts “ [a]ny cl ai m

. . . ba se d up on th e ex erci se or pe rfo rm an ce or th e fai lu re to ex erci se or pe rfo rm a di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on or du ty on th e p art of a fed eral ag en cy or a n e m pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t, whe th er o r no t t he di sc ret io n i nv ol ve d b e ab us ed .”

A two -p art te st de te rm in es whe n th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on ap pl ie s. Fi rs t, th e ag en cy act io n m us t “ ‘inv ol v[ e] an el em en t of jud gm en t or ch oi ce.’” Uni te d
State s v. Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. 31 5, 32 2 (1 99 1) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Berkov itz

v. Uni te d St at es , 48 6 U.S. 5 3 1
, 5 3 6 ( 19 88 )). Seco nd
, we m us t “ de ci de [ ] ‘w he th er th at jud gm en t is of th e ki nd th at th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on w a s de si gn ed

to sh ie ld .’ ” Id

. at 32 2- 23 (q uo ti ng Berk ov it z, 48 6 U.S. at 53 6)

. “ ‘[I] t is th e na tu re of
th e co nd uc t’” an d whe th er th e co nd uc t is “ su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an a lysis ” “ ‘rath er th an th e st at us of t he act or th at go ve rn s wh et he r th e ex cep ti on ap pl ie s.’” Id. at 32 5 (al te rat io n in or i g i na l) (q uo ti ng Vari g Airl in es v. Uni te d St at es , 46 7 U.S. 79 7, 81 3 (1 98 4) ). “ [T]he ex cep ti on ‘pro te ct s on ly go ve rn m en ta l act io ns an d de ci si on s ba se d

-4

-on co ns id erat io ns of pu bl ic po li cy ,’ ” an d th ere is a r e b u t ta bl e pr es um pt io n th at th e
go ve rn m en t “ ag en t’s act s are gr ou nd ed in po li cy ” “ [w]hen es ta bl is he d go ve rn m en ta l

po li cy

. . . al lo ws [th e] ag en t to ex erci se di sc ret i o n

. ” I d

. a t 32 3- 24 (q uo ti ng Berk ov it z, 48 6 U.S. at 53 7) ; se e al so Aud io Odysse y , Ltd

. v. Uni te d St at es , 25 5 F.3 d
51 2, 51 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Dy ks tra v. U.S. B ur eau o f P r i s o n s , 1 40 F.3 d 79 1, 79 5- 96 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ).

“We rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s un de r th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on to th e FTCA.” Dy ks tra , 14 0 F .3d at 7 95

.

App el la nt s “ co nc ed e th at th e r e was an ‘elem en t of ch oi ce’ in th e [Co rp s’]

act io ns ,” bu t pr op os e th at aft er th e Co rp s de ci de d to rep la ce th e gu ard rai ls
, “ it [was ]

no lo ng er ex erci si ng a di sc ret io na ry po li cy -m ak in g fu nc ti on ” th at was “ ‘sus cep ti bl e
to po li cy an al y si s’” an d sh ou ld be req ui red to fo ll ow th ro ug h “ in a no n- ne gl ig en t

m an ne r.” (Qu ot in g Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. a t 3 2 2
, 3 2 5)

. W e m us t de ci de whe th er th e Co rp s’ de ci si on —t o rem ov e t h e gu ard rai ls an d no t po st warn in g si gn s— is

“ su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy

an al y si s.” We con cl ud e it is

.

A. Cor ps ’ Acti on s W ere Di sc reti on ar y Bec ke r te st ifi ed two reg ul at io ns in ch ap te r 3 of th e Co rp s’ Eng in eeri ng Man ua l
11 10 -2 -4 10 (Ma nu al ) were “ rel ev an t to th e si ti ng of pa rk in g area s

. . . an d th e

ne ces si ty of gu ard rai ls or ot he r rai li ng s at or ne ar pa rk in g area s.” The fir st pr ov is io n,
pa rag rap h 3 -3 (a)( 1) , pro vi de s, i n re le va nt pa rt:

Ove rlo ok s an d th ei r su pp or t faci li ti es sh ou ld be si te d on ge nt ly sl op in g te rrai n. The area whe re th e en tra nc e, ex it an d pa rk in g faci li ti es wil l be lo cat ed sh ou ld no t exce ed 7 per cen t grad es an d th e se ct io n of road way pa ss in g t he po te nt ia l s it e sh ou ld no t ex ceed 5 p erce nt gra de

.

The sec on d p ro vi si on , par ag rap h 3 -3 (a)( 2) , pro vi de s, i n re le va nt pa rt:

-5

-Prec ip it ou s dr op of fs sh ou ld be m ad e sa fe by th e pr ov is io n of
ap pr op ria te rai li ng

.

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at no th in g in th e Man ua l pr es cri be s “ a sp eci fic
,
m an da to ry

du ty upo n t he Co rp s t o i ns ta ll or m ai nt ai n (or t o n ot rem ov e) g ua rd rai ls
, to pr ov id e wa r n i n g s , or to res tri ct pa rk in g” ap pl ic ab le to Trai ni ng Dik e Ro ad

. W e al so ag ree th at “ [t]he us e of pe rm is si ve la ng ua ge , rat he r th an m an da to ry te rm s, su ch

as ‘m us t’ or ‘sha ll ,’ sh ows t h a t th es e [Ma nu al ] pr ov is io ns are m erel y gu id el in es .”
Bec ke r de sc rib ed th e sl op e of th e em ba nk m en t fro m t h e r o a d to th e riv er as “ no t
pr eci pi to us ” at th e si te of t he acci de nt

. The de ci si on to rep la ce th e gu ard rai ls was

m ad e in th e co nt ex t of th e op erat io n o f a mu c h l a r ge r pr ojec t— th e Co rp s’ du ty to

m ai nt ai n th e as so ci at ed recr eat io n area s an d faci li ti es —an d th e Co rp s ha d au th or it y
to de ci de ho w to be st effe ct ua te th os e d ut ie s.

B. Sus cept ib le to Po li cy Anal ys is
In de ci di ng whet he r th e n at ur e o f th e Co rp s’ act io ns is “ su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy

an al y si s,” “ [t]he fo cu s of th e in qu iry is no t on th e ag en t’s su bjec ti ve in te nt .” Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. at 32 5. Rat he r, we lo ok t o w h e t he r th e de ci si on be in g ch al le ng ed is

“ gr ou nd ed in so ci al , eco no m ic , or p ol it ic al po li cy .” Id . at 3 23

.

Loo ki ng fir st at ap pe ll an ts ’ co nt en ti on th at th e Co rp s’ fai lu re to warn was no t

a pu bl ic po li cy de ci si on , we fin d gu id an ce in Lay to n v. Uni te d St at es , 98 4 F.2 d 14 96 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). In Lay to n, we co nc lu de d th e Uni te d St at es Fo res t Serv ic e’s “ de ci si on whe th er or no t to is su e warn in gs [was ] su sc ep ti bl e to po li c y a n a l ysi s [b ecau se ] it
in vo lv e[d ] ba la nc in g sa fet y ag ai ns t co st : th e m or e effo rt th e Fo res t Serv ic e ex pe nd ed

to di sc ov er da ng ers an d warn co nt ract or s o f th em , th e g reat er t he sa fet y be ne fit bu t al so th e gr eat er th e co st to th e go ve rn m en t.” Id

. at 15 04 -0 5; acco rd Hin sl ey , 51 6 F.3 d

at 67 3 (“ [T]he de ci si on to warn is
, at it s co r e , a p o l i c y de ci si on .”); Dem ery v. U.S. Dep ’t of In te rio r, 35 7 F.3 d 83 0, 8 3 4 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (co nc lu di ng th e “ de ci si on

. . .

-6

-whe th er to warn

. . . is su sc ep ti bl e to a po li cy an al y si s” be cau se it req ui res ba la nc in g

in te res ts li ke “ in crea se d s afet y

. . . wit h . . . th e co st of e rect in g war ni ng s” ).

App el la nt s ur ge us to fo ll ow Co pe v. Sco tt , 45 F.3 d 44 5 (D.C. Ci r. 19 95 ), whi ch he ld th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y to th e Nati on al Park
Serv ic e ’s f

a il ur e to warn ad eq ua te ly ab ou t th e na tu re of a ro ad su rfac e be cau se th e Park Serv ic e co ul d no t “ art ic ul at e ho w th e pl acement of ad di ti on al or di ffer en t si gn s

on Bea ch Driv e i mp l i c a t e s

. . . e co no m ic , s oc ia l, or po li ti cal co nc ern s.” Id . a t 45 2. The Park Serv ic e po st ed “ no le ss th an t w e n t y-th ree tra ffi c co nt ro l, warn in g, an d
in fo rm at io na l si gn s” on th e se ct io n of ro ad whe re an acci de nt oc cu rred
, an d th ere was

no ev id en ce th at “ en gi ne eri ng an d aes th et ic co nc ern s” pr e v e n te d th e po st in g of ad di ti on al warn in g si gn s. Id

. at 45 1- 52 (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

. In Co pe , th e co ur t f o u n d t h e Park Serv ic e ha d al read y m ad e a sp eci fic po li cy de ci si on to fav or sa fet y

ov er aes t h e ti cs an d th is in vo lv ed “ en gi ne eri ng jud gm en t” ba se d on ob jecti ve

sc ie nt ifi c pr in ci pl es no t su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy a n a l ys i s

. Id

. at 45 2. Our fact s are di ffer en t, an d Co pe is no t bi nd in g. App el la nt s ha ve no t al le ge d or pr es en te d ev id en ce
to sh ow th e Co rp s ha d ei th er ad op te d a sa fet y po li cy or es ta bl is he d pr io rit ie s to gu id e th e Co rp s’ de ci si on s in m ai nt ai ni ng Trai ni ng Dik e Ro ad an d th e faci li ti es at Gav in s Po in t Dam
, an d ap pe l l an ts ha ve fai le d to reb ut th e pr es um pt io n th at th e Co rp s’ de ci si on no t to po st warn in g si gn s was gr ou nd ed in po li cy

. See Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. at 32 3- 24

.

W e n e x t tu rn to ap pe ll an ts ’ pr op os it io n th at th e Co rp s’ fai lu re to rep la ce th e
gu ard rai ls by a sp eci fic da te was no t it se lf a po li cy de ci si on , bu t in st ead was a

ne gl ig en t fai lu re to fo ll ow th ro ug h on an e a r l i e r p ol ic y de te rm in at io n th at th e
gu ard rai ls sh ou ld be rep la ced

. App el la nt s rel y on Asl ak so n v. Uni te d St at es , 79 0
F.2 d 68 8, 69 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ), fo r th e pr op os it io n th at “ [w]here th e c h a ll en ge d

go ve rn men ta l act iv it y in vo lv es sa fet y co ns id erat io ns un de r an es ta bl is he d po li cy
rat he r th an th e ba la nc in g of co m pe ti ng pu bl ic po li cy co ns id erat io ns , th e rat io na le fo r th e [d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on ] ex cep ti on fal ls away. ” App el la nt s cl ai m th ere is ev id en ce

-7

-of an “ es ta bl is he d po li cy ” of pr ot ect in g th e area whe re th e acci de nt oc cu rred be cau se

“ gu ard rai ls ha [d ] be en in pl ace fo r at le as t th irt y y ears .” App el la nt s arg ue th e “ po li cy

was reaf fir m ed whe n Mr. Bec ke r de te rm in ed th at th e de te rio rat in g gu ard rai ls sh ou ld be rep la ced ” b y

Sep te m be r 30

.

Unl ik e th e go ve rn m en t ag en cy in Asl ak so n, who se “ po li cy cl earl y req ui red it

to el ev at e it s po wer li ne s i f sa fet y co ns id erat io ns co m

pe ll ed su ch act io n,” id ., t he re

was no cl ear po li cy th at bo un d th e Co rp s to pr io rit iz e sa fet y co ns id erat io ns or

m ai nt ai n gu ard rai ls

. As th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed
, “ [t]he Co rp s co ul d ha ve de ci de d

to is su e a b in di ng po li cy ,” bu t ch os e n ot to

.

W e reco gn i z e a d i st in ct io n be twee n th e Co rp s (1 ) ex erci si ng di sc ret io n an d de ci di ng to rep la ce t he gu ard rai ls , and (2) de ci di ng to is su e a reg ul at io n o r fo rm in g
a p ol ic y req ui rin g t he in st al la ti on or m ai nt en an ce o f gu ard rai ls . Becau se th e Co rp s ha d th e di sc ret io n to de ci de if, ho w, an d whe n to rep la ce th e gu ard rai ls
, it ha d th e di sc ret io n to al te r it s in it ia l de ci si on to rep la ce th e gu ard rai ls by Sep te m be r 30 whe n th e f i r s t c o n tra ct or fai le d to pe rfo rm

. See, e.g ., Gau be rt, 49 9 U.S. a t 33 1 (d eci di ng

co nd uc t of ba nk reg ul at or s di d no t “ fal l ou ts id e th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on ” whe n th e co nd uc t “ in vo lv ed th e m ere ap pl ic at io n of te ch ni cal sk il ls a n d bu si ne ss

ex pe rti se

. . . a t th e op erat io na l le ve l” rat he r th an at a po li cy -m ak in g le ve l, be cau se

“ th e ch al le ng ed act io ns in vo lv ed th e ex erci se of ch oi ce an d jud gm en t” ); Sh an sk y v. Uni te d St at es , 16 4 F.3 d 68 8, 69 5 (1s t Cir. 19 99 ) (d et erm in in g “ [a]n agen cy th at ha s di sc ret io n to m ak e po li cy ch oi ces ” can ad jus t th e “ ba la nc e of rel ev an t co nc ern s” ov er ti m e, an d whe n th e “ ov eral l p o l i c y de ci si on [is ] pr ot ect ed by th e di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on ,” th e p ro te ct io n e xt en ds to “ co m po ne nt ” d eci si on s)

.

Mo re im po rta nt ly, th e Co rp s ne ed no t ha ve m a d e a “co ns ci ou s de ci si on

re g ard in g po li cy fact or s,” so lo ng as th e de ci si on to rem ov e th e gu ard rai ls was

su sc ep ti bl e to a “ ba la nc in g of pu bl ic po li cy ob jecti ve s.” Kieh n v. Uni te d St at es , 98 4
F.2 d. 11 00
, 11 05 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 93 ) (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

. Here, as th e di st ric t co ur t

-8

-ob se rv ed
, th e Co rp s ha d to “ ba la nc e th e ov eral l pu rp os e of Trai ni ng Dik e Ro ad wit h

th e recr eat io na l us e s o f t h e area , th e al lo cat io n of fu nd s,” th e ti m in g of rep ai rs an d

m ai nt en an ce work
, “ an d th e sa fet y of d riv ers ,” an gl ers , and ot he r us ers . The Co rp s

rem ov ed th e gu ard rai ls an d po st s it se lf to sa ve m on ey an d to ex pe di te t he

pr ojec t— bo th reas on s refl ect th e di sc ret io na ry ex erci se of ch oi ce an d jud gm en t. W he n th e f

i r s t co nt ract or , C.B.M.C
., fai le d to pe rfo rm in acco rd an ce wit h th e Sep te m be r 30 sc he du le
, th e Co rp s ex erci se d ch oi ce an d jud gm en t to ret ai n a ne w

co nt ract or wit h a rev is ed sc he du le
, y et no gu ard rai ls were at th e si te o n O c t o b e r 9,
20 11

. W e co nc lu de th e Co rp s’ di sc ret io na ry act io ns were “ su sc ep ti bl e t o po li cy

an al y si s” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f Gau be rt.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm th e wel l-r eas on ed de ci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-