# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 19 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Swan B. Mo ss , III, In di vi du al ly and as C o- Adm in is tra to r of th e Est at e o f G.Y.M.,

Decea se d a nd On Be ha lf o f W ro ng fu l Dea th Ben efi ci ari es of G.Y.M. Es ta te of G.Y.M.; Gay Cu nn in gh am Mo ss , Ind iv id ua ll y

an d a s C o- Adm in is tra to r of th e Est at e o f G.Y.M., Deceas ed an d On Beh al f of W ro ng fu l Dea th Ben efi ci ari es of
G.Y.M. Esta te of G.Y.M.; Kerri Bas in ge r, In di vi du al ly and as Ad m in is tra tri x o n be ha lf o f Sh an e Edwa rd Bas in ge r Est at e o n b eh al f of Jad y n R he a Bas in ge r Est at e

on be ha lf o f Kin sl ey

Ann Bas in ge r Est at e; Ant ho ny Ly nn Sh um ak e, Adm in is tra to r of th e Est at es of R ob ert Sh um ak e, de ceas ed , W il en e Sh um ak e, de ceas ed , and N.S.,
de ceas ed , and on Beh al f of W ro ng fu l Dea th Ben efi ci ari es of R ob ert Sh um ak e, de ceas ed , W il en e Sh um ak e, de ceas ed , and N.S., dece as ed Est at e o f Ro be rt Sh um ak e Est at eo f W il en e Sh um ak e Est at e o f N.S; Tar a Ro ed er, Ad m in is tra tri x o f
th e Est at e o f Deb or ah Bu sb y Ro ed er, an d o n b eh al f of th e wro ng fu l d eat h
be ne fic ia rie s o f Deb or ah Bu sb y Ro ed er Es ta te of De bo rah Bu sb y Ro ed er; Nati sh a L. Rach al , on be ha lf o f T.A.; Je rry Don McM as te r, In di vi du al ly and On Be ha lf o f
th e Est at e o f Deb ra Wy

nn e Mc Mas te r an d Hi s M in or Ch il dr en , A.C.M. an d
E.C.M. Est at e o f Deb ra Wy nn e Mc Mas te r on be ha lf o f A.C.M. o n b eh al f of E.C.M.; C hr is ty Pug h B as in ge r, on be ha lf o f K S B; Ben jam in L. Pate, o n b eh al f
of B.L.; Aaro n S ul tz , Ind iv id ua ll y an d a s Sp eci al Adm in is tra to r of th e Est at e o f
Eric W ay ne Su lt z, on be ha lf o f The Est at e o f Eric W ay ne Su lt z, Decea se d, an d
St at ut or y W ro ng fu l Dea th Ben efi ci ari es of Eri c Way ne Su lt z Est at e o f Eric W ay ne Su lt z; Tara Ro ed er, as th e Adm in is tra tri x o f th e Est at e o f Bru ce Way ne Ro ed er,

an d o n b eh al f of

th e wro ng fu l d eat h b en efi ci ari es of B ru ce Way ne Ro ed er Es ta te of Bru ce Way

ne Ro ed er; Am an da Bak er Will is , Ind iv id ua ll y an d a s Ad m in is tra to r of th e Est at es of K.S., d ecea se d, an d J ul ie Free m an , dec eas ed , and on be ha lf o f th e

wro ng fu l d eat h b en efi ci ari es of K.S. an d J ul ie Free m an Est at e o f K.S. Est at e o f

Ju li e Fre em an ; J ud it h N. Pat e, on be ha lf o f B.L.; Ad am Jez , Ind iv id ua ll y

&as
Adm in is tra to r of

th e Est of Les li e Je z, Decd , ob o Es t o f & Wron gf ul Deat h

Ben efi ci ari es of Les li e Je z, &Ad am Jez , Ind iv id ua ll y

&as Adm in is tra to r of

th e Est
of KJ, Decd , ob o Es t & W ro ng fu l Dea th Ben efi ci ari es of KJ Est at e o f KJ Es ta te of
Lesl ie Jez ; Su sa n J oh ns on , Adm in is tra to r of th e Est at e o f Sh eri W ad e, Decea se d,

on be ha lf o f th e Est at e o f Sh eri W ad e, an d o n b eh al f of th e Wron gf

ul Deat hBen efi ci ari es of S he ri Wade Est at e o f Sh eri W ad e; Can da ce Sm it h, i nd iv id ua ll y

an d a s Ad m in is tra tri x o n b eh al f of Ant ho ny Keith Sm it h Es ta te on be ha lf o f

Jo se ph Pau l Sm it h Es ta te on be ha lf o f Kat el y nn Nico le Sm it h Es ta te ; Th eres a Ro ed er, as th e Adm in is tra tri x o f th e Est at e o f Est he r Kay Ro ed er, d ecea se d, an d

on be ha lf o f th e wro ng fu l d eat h b en efi ci ari es of Es th er Kay Ro ed er Es ta te of

Est he r Kay

Ro ed er

Pla in ti ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca; Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, Act in g B y an d Th ro ug h t he Dep art m en t o f Agr ic ul tu re, U.S. Fo res t Se rv ic e, al so kn own as De pa rtment o f

Agr ic ul tu re, al so kn own as U.S. Fo res t Se rv ic e

Defe nd an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Tex ark an a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 18
Fi le d: Ju ly 20, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Thi s cas e ari s es fro m th e tra gi c flo od in g of th e Lit tl e Mi ss ou ri Ri ve r in th e
Alb ert Pi ke Rec reat io n Area (“ Alb ert Pi ke ”) whi ch is lo cat ed in th e Ark an sa s po rti on

of Ouc hi ta Nati on al Fo res t. Alb ert Pi ke is an ou td oo r cam pi ng an d recr eat io n si te

co ve rin g ov er two hu nd red acre s of la nd

, in cl ud in g po rti on s of th e Lit tl e Mi ss ou ri

R i ve r. On th e ni gh t of Ju ne 11

, 20 10

, an in te ns e st or m syste m cau se d rap id an d

-2

-se rio us flo od in g of th e riv er. The ri si ng wate r su bm erg ed sev eral cam ps it es wit hi n
Alb ert Pik e, res ul ti ng in th e d eat h o f twe nt y cam pe rs

.

Thi s ap pe al st em s fro m el ev en co ns ol id at ed la wsu it s al le gi ng ne gl ig en ce an d

m al ic io us co nd uc t by th e Uni te d St at es rel at ed to th e de ve lo pm en t an d m ai nt en an ce

of Alb ert Pi ke

. The di st ric t cou rt gr an te d th e Uni te d St at es ’s m ot io n to di sm is s fo r 1

la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r th e F ed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act (“ FTCA”).

Afte r a car efu l re vi ew of

th e rec or d, we af

fir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Alb ert Pi ke is a la rg e o ut do or cam pi ng an d re crea ti on si te . W in di ng th ro ug h

th e si te is th e Lit tl e Mi ss ou ri Ri ve r, whi ch gi ve s vi si to rs th e op po rtu ni ty to en ga ge

in po pu la r recr eat io na l act iv it ie s in cl ud in g fis hi ng , ca noe ing

, an d sw im m in g. The si te

al so co nt ai ns fif

ty-fou r cam

ps it es pl aced ov er fo ur lo op s, m ark ed as Loo ps A, B, C,

an d D. In 20 10 it co st pr os pe ct iv e cam pe rs $1 0 to se cu re a cam ps it e o v e rn ig ht in

Loo ps A, B, an d C, an d $1 6 to se cu re a si te in Loo p D. Loo p D’ s hi gh er cos t was in

pa rt du e to it s de ve lo pe d cam ps it es , whi ch in cl ud ed el ect ric al an d wate r ho ok up s fo r

RVs

.

The Loo p D cam

ps it es were co ns tru ct ed as pa rt of a ren ov at io n an d ex pa ns io n

pr ojec t fo r Alb ert Pi ke la un ch ed by Co ng re s s i n 2 00 1. The pr ojec t al lo cat ed ov er $6 00 ,00 0 to ren ov at e si te s in Loo p C a n d t o bu il d Loo p D cam ps it es

. The

red ev el op m en t pr ojec t was he ad ed by Dis tri ct Ran ge r Ja m es W at so n. The Nati on al

Env iro nm en ta l Po li cy Act of 19 69

, 42 U.S.C. § 43 21

, req ui red W at so n to pr ep are an

e n v i r o n men ta l as se ss m en t of th e pr ojec t. See 36 C.F.R. § 21 8.2

. As pa rt of t h a t

The Hon or ab le Su sa n O. Hick ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-3

-as se ss m en t, W at so n pu t to ge th er a te am in cl ud in g two “ wate rs he d sp eci al is ts ”: Ken

Luc ko w, a so il sci en ti st , and Alan Cli ng en pe el , a hydro lo gi st

.

Luc ko w an d Cl in ge np eel were each co ns ul te d for th ei r op in io n as to whe th er

an y of th e pr op os ed cam

ps it es in Loo p D wou ld fal l wit hi n a flo od pl ai n. Luc ko w, th e

so il sc ie nt is t, p r e p ared an in it ia l rep or t th at co nc lu de d th at “ m os t of th e area whe re

th e ne w cam

ps it es are pr op os ed

. . . sh ou ld be co ns id ered as be in g wit hi n th e 10 0-

y ear flo od pl ai n.” As a res ul t, he recom m en de d th at an y cam ps it e in Loo p D sh ou ld

be pr im it iv e. He ex pl ic it ly reco m m en de d th at an y cam

ps it e sh ou ld la ck el ect ric al an d

wate r ho ok up s. He al so reco m m en de d pl aci ng si gn s to warn cam pe rs of po te nt ia l

flo od in g.

Ran ge r W at so n wan te d to bu il d de ve lo pe d cam ps it es w i t h in Loo p D, in pa rt

du e t o a d e s ire to pu t th e ap pr op ria te d fu nd s to go od us e an d in pa rt to m eet pu bl ic

ex pe ct at io ns su rro un di ng th e pr ojec t. Pres en te d wit h Luc ko w’ s po si ti o n , Wa t so n

so ug ht a se co nd op in io n. W at so n to ok Cl in ge np eel – th e hydro lo gi st – in pe rs on to

th e pl an ne d si te f

o r Lo o p D

. W at so n th en as ke d hi m if he be li ev ed th e pr op os ed

cam ps it e wou ld fal l wit hi n th e 10 0- y ear flo od pl ai n. Cl in ge np eel vi su al ly es ti m at ed

th e flo od pl ai n us in g th e “ do ub le ba nk fu ll ” m et ho d (wh ic h C l i n g e np eel hi m se lf

de sc rib es as on ly a “ qu ic k es ti m at e” of th e flo od pl ai n)

. Rel y in g on th at es t i m at e,
Cl in ge np eel to ld W at so n it was un l i k e l y th ere wou ld be flo od in g is su es if al l

ren ov at io ns to ok pl ace a bo ve th e si gh te d fl oo dp la in

.

W at so n pr ep ared a dr aft en vi ro nm en ta l as se ss m en t to su bm it fo r th e p ro ject.

The dr aft en vi ro nm en ta l as se ss m en t was ci rcu la te d to va rio us Fo res t Serv ic e of fic es ,

as well as Luc ko w an d Cling en pe el

. T he envi ro nm en ta l as se ss m en t pa rti al ly in cl ud ed

Luc ko w’ s flo od pl ai n an al y si s, bu t ul ti m at el y co nt rad ic te d Luc ko w by st at in g th at th e

pr op os ed Loo p D cam

ps it es wou ld no t fall wit hi n th e 1 00 -y ear f lo od pl ai n. Des pi te

th e en vi ro nm en ta l a s s e s s m en t’s fin al co nc lu si on th at th e cam ps it e wou ld no t fal l

wit hi n a flo od pl ai n, t he en vi ro nm en ta l ass es sm en t s ti ll reco m m en de d p os ti ng si gn s

-4

-to warn of fla sh flo od s. Cl in ge np eel of fere d no ed it s to th e dr aft

, whi le Luc ko w m ad e

on ly m in or ch an ge s. The fin al en vi ro nm en ta l as se ss m en t was su bm it te d. The Fo res t

Serv ic e th en fil ed a de ci si on no ti ce (s ig ne d by Ran ge r W at so n) ap pr ov in g th e pr ojec t,

in cl ud in g th e crea ti on of de ve lo pe d cam ps i te s wit hi n Loo p D. The de ci si on no ti ce

m a d e no refe ren ce to th e flo od pl ai n or th e ne ed to pl ace si gn s. No si gn s were ev er

po st ed . Loo p D o pe ne d fo r cam pe rs in 20 04

.

Occas io na ll y th e Lit tl e Mi ss ou ri Riv er wou ld ris e, pr om pt in g m in or flo od in g

co nc ern s fo r di ffer en t cam ps it es

. Ran ge r W at so n m ov ed cam pe rs in Loo p C on th ree
di ffer en t o ccas io ns in 20 06 -0 7 d ue to li gh t fl oo di ng . An in ci de nt rep or t fr om 20 08

su gg es ts th at cam

pe rs up st ream

fro m Loo p D o nc e req ue st ed ass is ta nc e aft er ri si ng

w a t e rs was he d th ei r cam pi ng su pp li es do wns tre am

. Of te n do cu m en te d flo od in g

ev en ts in Alb ert Pi ke be twee n 19 40 an d 20 10

, no ne in fli ct ed an y rep or te d in juri es an d

on ly one oc cu rred ne ar Lo op D.

* * *

On th e ni gh t of Ju ne 11

, 20 10

, a st ro ng s t o r m s ys t em m ov ed sl owl y to ward

Alb ert Pi ke

. The st or m crea te d fla sh flo od co nd it io ns wit hi n th e Lit tl e Mi ss ou ri Ri ve r

c h an ne l. By th e ti m e si gn s of flo od in g were read il y ap pa ren t, m an y cam pe rs wer e

as le ep at th ei r cam

ps it es

. Man y of th os e who were awak e de ci de d to h un ke r do wn

in th ei r ve hi cl es

. As th e wate r co nt in ue d to ris e, so m e cam pe rs be ga n to real iz e th at

th e i r v e h i c l e s m ig ht be at ris k fro m th e flo od an d at te m pt ed to m ov e to hi gh er

gr ou nd . Sev eral fam il ie s s ou gh t re fu ge in ne arb y tre es

.

Ove r th e co ur se of th e ne xt se ve ral ho ur s, cat as tro ph ic flo od in g cl ai m ed th e

li ve s o f t w e n ty cam

pe rs

. So m e of th e cam

pe rs who at te m

pt ed to ta ke refu ge in th e

tre es were wrest ed away by th e ris in g ti de of th e flo od wate rs

. Oth er fam il ie s, so m e

of whi ch in cl ud ed th ree ge ne rat io ns , at te m pt ed to m ak e it th ro ug h th e st or m in th ei r

ve hi cl es , bu t pe ris he d whe n t h e flo od swe pt th e ve hi cl es away. Sev en te en of th e

-5

-cam

pe rs who lo st th ei r li ve s were cam pi ng in Loo p D, wit h th e ot he r th ree jus t

up st ream

. A U.S. G e o l o g ic al Su rv ey ex pe rt de sc rib ed th e flo od ’s in te ns it y as

ex ceed in g a “ 50 0- y ear f

lo od ev en t.”

The pl ai nt iff

s in th is cas e fil ed c l a i ms un de r th e FTCA rel at ed to th e
de ve lo pm e n t a n d m ai nt en an ce of th e Loo p D c am ps it es

. The Uni te d St at es m ov ed

to di sm is s, cl ai m in g th ey were en ti tl ed to im m un it y un de r th e Ark an sa s Rec reat io na l

U s e S ta tu te (“ ARUS”) an d so th e FTCA de pr iv ed th e di st ric t co ur t of juri sd ic t i o n

. See, e.g ., W il so n v. Uni te d St at es , 98 9 F.2 d 95 3, 95 5- 56 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (ex pl ai ni ng

t h a t “ th e Uni te d St at es is en ti tl ed to th e be ne fit of st at e recr eat io na l us e st at ut es , if

ap pl ic ab le

, whe n it is su ed un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act” ). The di st ric t co ur t

as ke d th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t to acce pt cert ifi cat io n of th is qu es ti on : “ W he th er

‘m al ic iou s’ co nduc t[ ] unde r [t he A rkan sa s Rec reat io na l Use St at ut e] in cl ud es co nd uc t

in reck le ss di sr eg ard of th e co ns eq ue nc es fro m whi ch m al ic e m ay be in ferr ed .” The

Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t acce pt ed cert if i c a t i on an d an swe red in th e affi rm at iv e.

Ro ed er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 32 S.W .3d 62 7 (Ar k. 2 01 4)

.

Onc e th e cert ifi ed qu es ti on was an swe red

, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns ol id at ed th e

cas es

. The Uni te d St at es ren ewed it s m ot io n to di sm is s fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on

. The

d is tri ct co ur t al lo wed li m it ed di sc ov ery rel at ed to juri sd ic ti on al is su es

. Afte r
d i s c o v e r y was co m

pl et e, pl ai nt iff

s fil ed th ei r op po si ti on to th e m ot io n to di sm is s

. T he U nited St at es rep li ed in cl ud in g te st im on ia l de cl arations fr om thr ee w itn es se s w ho

ha d no t be en de po se d. Pl ai nt iff s m ov ed to st rik e th e de cl arat io ns , o r i n th e

al te rn at iv e, to be all owe d t o d ep os e th e th ree wi tn es se s.

On Mar ch 28

, 20 17

, th e di st ric t co u r t g r a n t e d th e Uni te d St at es ’s m ot io n to

di sm is s fo r la ck of

juri sd ic ti on an d de ni ed pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n to st rik e th e de cl arat io ns

. The di st ric t c o u r t h e l d th at th e Uni te d St at es was en ti tl ed to im m un it y un de r th e

ARUS. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at it la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri s d i ct io n

un de r th e FTCA. Pl ai nt iff s ap pe al

.

-6

-II

. Dis cus si on

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

P l a in ti ffs ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of th e Uni te d St at es ’s m ot i o n t o
di sm is s fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on un de r Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(1 ). Mo ti on s un de r

12 (b )(1 ) m ay as se rt ei th er a “ faci al ” or “ fa c t u a l ” at ta ck on juri sd ic ti on

. W he re, as
he re, a pa rty b r i n g s a f

a c t u al at ta ck , a di st ric t co ur t m ay lo ok ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs

to affi da vi ts or ot he r do cu m en ts

. See Harri s v. P.A.M. Tran sp or t, In c., 33 9 F.3 d 63 5,

63 7, 63 7 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). “ Thi s do es no t

. . . co nv ert th e 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n to on e

fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.” Id

. at 63 7 n.4

. In st ead

, th e pa rty i n vo ki ng fed eral
juri sd ic ti on m

us t pr ov e juri sd ic ti on al fact s by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev i d e n c e.

One Po in t So lu ti on s, LLC v. Bo rch ert

, 48 6 F.3 d 34 2, 34 7 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 07 ). Tho se

fact ua l fin di ng s are rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Osb or n v. Uni te d St at es , 91 8 F.2 d 72 4,

73 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (ci ti ng W il li am so n v. Tuc ke r, 64 5 F.2 d 40 4, 41 3 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 )).

“ Thu s, th e Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) pr oc ed ur e en ab le s th e co ur t to res ol ve a th res ho ld
juri sd ic ti on al is su e wit ho ut th e ne ed fo r tri al

, un le ss th e is su e is ‘so bo un d up wit h th e

m eri ts th at a fu ll tri al on th e m eri ts m ay be ne ces sa ry to res ol ve th e is su e.’” Dis ab il it y

Su pp or t All

. v. Heart woo d Ent erp ris es , LLC, 88 5 F.3 d 54 3, 54 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 )
(q uo ti ng Crawf

or d v. Uni te d St at es , 79 6 F.2 d 92 4, 92 9 ( 7t h Ci r. 19 86 )). If th e juri sd ic ti on al is su e is “ bo un d up ” wit h th e m eri ts it rem ai ns wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s

di sc ret io n t o d eci de whet he r to ev al ua te th e ev id en ce un de r th e su m m ary jud gm en t

st an da rd

. See Gul f Oil Co rp

. v. C o p p P a v i n g Co

., 41 9 U.S. 18 6, 20 3 n.1 9 (1 97 4)
(ex pl ai ni ng th at whe n th ere is “ an id en ti ty be twee n th e juri sd ic ti on al i s s u es an d

cert ai n is su es on th e m eri ts ” a di st ric t co ur t m ay ap pl y th e su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

st an da rd ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The FTCA co nf

ers su bje ct m at

te r j ur isd ic ti on fo r su it s ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es

in “ 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

-7

-cl ai m an t in acco rd an ce wit h th e la w of th e pl ace whe re th e act or om is si on oc cu rred .”

FDIC v. Meyer, 51 0 U.S. 47 1, 47 7 (1 99 4) (q uo ti ng 28 U.S. C

. § 13 46 (b )). The

“ pr iv at e an al og ue ” req ui rem en t is ech oe d in th e se ct io n of th e st at ut e ex pl ai ni ng th e
fed eral go ve rn m en t’s l ia bi li ty. See 28 U.S.C. § 26 74 (“ The Uni te d St at es sh al l be

li ab le

. . . in th e sa m e m an ne r an d to th e sa m e ex te nt as a pr iv at e in di vi du al un de r li ke

ci rcu m st an ces . . .”).

The di st ric t co ur t m ad e se ve ral fin di ng s of fact by a pr ep on de ran c e o f t he

ev id en ce. Pl ai nt iff

s as se rt th at be cau se juri sd ic ti on un de r th e FTCA is “ in te rtwi ne d

wit h” th e m eri ts qu es ti on of th e ap pl ic ab il it y of th e ARUS to th e p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s,

th e di st ric t co ur t a b u se d it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to ap pl y a su m m ary jud gm en t

st an da rd whe n co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce. The Uni te d St at es res po nd s by sa y in g th at pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t is im m at eri al

, as di sm is sa l wa s a p p r op ria te un de r ei th er

st an da rd

. W e ne ed no t de ci de whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e co rrec t st an da rd

,

2

as juri sd ic ti on is la ck in g ev en whe n th e fact s are vi ewed un de r th e su m m ary jud gm en t

st an da rd

.

B. Imm uni ty under the ARUS

Bec au se th e FTCA rem ov es im m un it y fro m th e Uni te d St at es on ly in th os e
ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch a pr iv at e la nd own er wou ld be li ab le

, we m us t de ci de whe th er

an in di vi du al la nd own e r wou ld rece iv e im m un it y fro m pl ai nt iff

s’ cl ai m s un de r th e

ARUS. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 46 (b ). “ The pu rp os e of [ t h e A R US] is to en co ur ag e

The Uni te d St at es al so su gg es ts th at pl ai nt iff s di d n o t cl earl y ob

ject in th e 2

di st ric t co ur t to th e pr op os ed st an da rd of rev ie w, th ereb y waiv in g an y arg um en t ov er th e co rrec t st an da rd

. We do ub t th at pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t was waiv ed

. In di vi du al

p l a i nt iff s rep eat ed ly id en ti fie d th e pr op os ed st an da rd in th ei r br ie fs be f o r e

co ns ol id at io n of th e cas es

. Tho se arg um en ts were th en in co rp or at ed i n th ei r joi nt

res po ns e. Bec au se we affi rm th e di st ric t co u r t

, ho wev er, we de cl in e to reac h th is
is su e.

-8

-own ers of la nd to m ak e la nd an d wat er areas av ai la bl e to th e pu bl ic fo r recr eat io na l

pu rp os es by li m it i n g th ei r li ab il it y to ward pe rs on s en te rin g th ereo n fo r su ch

pu rp os es .” Ar k

. Co de

. Ann

. § 18 -1 1- 30 1 (2 01 6)

. “ Gen eral ly, th e ARUS pr ov id es

im m un i t y f r o m li ab il it y to la nd own ers who m ak e th ei r pr op ert y av ai la bl e fo r th e

recr eat io na l us e o f o t h e r s

. ” Ro ed er, 43 2 S.W .3d at 63 0. The re are two m ai n

ex cep ti on s: 1) whe n “ th e la nd own er ch arg es th e pe rs on en te rin g th e l a n d fo r

recr eat io na l us e , ” a n d 2 ) “ whe n th e la nd own er m al ic io us ly fai ls to gu ard or warn

ag ai ns t an ul tra ha zard ou s co nd it io n, st ru ct ur e, us e, or act iv it y act ua ll y kn own to th e

la nd own er to be da ng ero us .” Id

. (ci ti ng Ark . C od e Ann . § 18 -1 1- 30 7 (2 01 6) ). W e

co ns id er ea ch ex cep ti on in tu rn

.

1. Th e “Ch ar

ge ” Excep ti on

The ARUS ge ne ral ly do es no t pr ov id e im m un it y “ [f]or inju ry su ffer ed in an y

cas e in whi ch th e own er of la nd ch arg es th e pe rs on or pe rs on s who en te r or go on th e

la nd fo r th e recr eat io n us e th ereo f

. . .” Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 18 -1 1- 30 7( 2) (2 01 6)

. The

st at ut e de fin es a “ ch arg e” as an “ ad m is si on fee for per m is si on to go up on or us e th e

la nd .” Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 18 -1 1- 30 2( 2) (2 01 6)

. The pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er th e $1 6

fee to se cu re a cam

ps it e in Loo p D is an “ ad m is si on fee” th at “ ch arg ed ” th e pl ai nt iff s

fo r th ei r rec reat io na l u se of Lo op D.

The Uni te d S ta te s s ug ge st s t ha t pr ev io us de ci si on s i nv ol vi ng si m il ar s ta tu te s

en act ed in ot he r st at es co m pe l an in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e th at ex cl ud es cam ps it e

ren ta l fe es fro m

qu al ifyin g as “ ad m is si on ” fees

. See, e.g ., Wil so n v. Uni te d St at es , 98 9 F.2 d 95 3, 95 7 ( 8 t h C i r

. 1 9 93 ) (h ol di ng th at a $2 fee to st ay in a bu il di ng on a

m il it ary ba se di d no t rem ov e im m un it y un de r th e Mi ss ou ri recr eat io na l us e st at ut e);

se e al so Garre an s v. Ci ty of Om ah a, 34 5 N.W .2d 30 9, 31 3 ( N e b

. 1 9 8 4 ) (h ol di ng

ca m ps it e ren ta l fees were no t ad m is si on s fees un de r Neb ras ka ’s recr eat io na l us e

st at ut e), ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Bro ns en v. Dawes Ct y ., 72 2 N.W .2d 17 (Neb

. 20 06 ). W e are m in df

ul th at “ [t] h e i n t e r pr et at io n of th e va rio us recr eat io na l us e

-9

-st at ut es is co nt ro ll ed by t he pr eci s e l a n gu ag e of each st at ut e.” W il so n, 98 9 F.2 d at

95 6. W e al so ack no wled ge th at we are bo un d by au th or it at iv e co ns tru ct io ns of st at e

la w by a st at e’s hi gh es t co ur t – co ns t r u c t i o n s t ha t m ig ht di ffer fro m st at e to st at e,

ev en whe n di ffer en t st at ut es in cl ud e si m il ar la ng ua ge

. See Eich en wald v. Sm al l, 32 1

F.3 d 73 3, 73 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ), as co rrec te d (Ma y 21

, 20 03 ) (“ W he n de ci di ng m at te rs

of st at e la w, we are bo un d by th e de ci si o n s o f t h e s t at e’s hi gh es t co ur t, an d, to th e

ex te nt th at a p r eci se is su e ha s no t be en ad dr es se d by t ha t co ur t, we m us t de te rm in e

it s pr ob ab le de ci s i o n on th e is su e by refe ren ce to it s an al og ou s cas e la w, rel ev an t

de ci si on s of th e st at e’s lo wer co ur ts

, an d ot he r po te n t i a l ly el uc id at in g st at e la w

m at eri al s.”)

. Fi na ll y , th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Ro ed er su gg es ts th at

th e ARUS sh ou ld be co ns tru ed st ric tl y to av oi d an ov erb ro ad gr an t of im m un it y

. 43 2

S.W .3d at 6 34

.

Eve n co ns tru in g th e ARUS st ric tl y , ho wev er, th e Loo p D cam ps it e fee do es no t

qu al ify as an “ ad m is si on fee” un de r th e st at ut e. Pl ai nt iff s fo cu s on th e fact th ey were

in jure d whi l e c am

pi ng – th e ex act act iv it y fo r whi ch th ey pa id th e us e fee. Bu t th e ARUS, by it s pl ai n te rm s, rem ov es im m un it y on l y w h e n a fee is ch arg ed to en te r a

pa rti cu la r area

. See, e.g ., O X F O R D E N G L I S H D I C T IO N A R Y (3 d ed

. 20 04 & on li ne

ve rs io n 20 11 ) (“ ad m is si on ”: “ [t]he pr oc es s or fact of en te rin g or be in g al lo wed to

en te r a pl ace

. . .”), ht tp :/ /www.o ed .co m /v ie w/En try/2 58 4; W E B S T E R ’ S T H IR D N E W

I N T E R N A T IO N A L D IC T IO N A R Y 28 (1 97 1) (“ ad m is si on ”: “ pe rm is si on or rig ht to en te r

. . .”; “ pr ic e of en tra nc e; fee pa id at or fo r en te rin g” ). Fees su bs eq ue nt to en try, su ch

as ch arg es to acce ss se rv ic es su ch as wate r or el ect ric al ho ok up s, do no t al te r th e

in it ia l gran t of im

m un it y

. Tho se fees are no t req ui red fo r “ en tra nc e” to th e rel ev an t

pa rcel of la nd

. The Uni te d St at es rep r e s e n t s ( a n d th e reco rd su pp or ts ) th at th e $1 6

ov ern ig ht cam

ps it e fee was so le ly fo r acce ss to pa rti cu la r cam ps it e se rv ic es an d th at

cam pe rs who di dn ’t pa y th e fee co ul d st il l acce ss Loo p D. See Oral A r g u men t a t

20 :4 9, ht tp :/ /m ed ia -o a.ca8 .us co ur ts .go v/ OAaud io /2 01 8/ 2/ 17 19 28 .MP3 (“ Eve n wit h

res pe ct to Loo p D

. . . pe op le who ha ve n’t pa id a cam ps it e fee can go in to Loo p D

-1 0-[an d] th ey can u s e t h e ba th ho us e”). Und er th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e, th e

ch arg e ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y to th e Loo p D fe es

. 3

2. Th e “Fa il ur e to Gua rd or W ar n” Excep ti on

The ARUS’s ot he r e x c ep ti on de ni es im m un it y “ fo r m al ic io us , bu t no t m ere

ne gl ig en t, fai lu re to gu ard or warn ag ai ns t an ul tra -h azar do us co nd it io n, st ru ct ur e,

pe rs on al pr op ert y , us e, or act iv it y act ua ll y kn own to th e own er to b e d a n g e ro us .”

Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 18 -1 1- 30 7( 1) (2 01 6)

. An act iv it y is ul tr a-h azar do us if it 1)

“ ne ces sa ril y in vo lv es a ris k of se rio us ha rm to th e pe r s o n o r c h at te ls of ot he rs th at

can no t be el im in at ed by th e ex erci se of th e ut m os t care ” an d 2) “ is no t a m at te r of

co m m on us ag e.” Man gr um v. Pi gu e, 19 8 S.W .3d 49 6, 49 9- 50 0 (20 04 ) (ci ti ng Zero

W ho le sa le Gas Co

. v. St ro ud

, 57 1 S.W .2d 74 (1 97 8) ); se e Carr v. Nan ce, 37 0 S.W .3d

82 6, 83 8 (2 01 0) (aff

irming whe re jury in st ru ct io ns st at e d th at “ a co nd it io n is

ul tra -h azar do us if it (1 ) can no t be pe rfo rm ed wit ho ut a ris k of se rio u s h a r m to th e

pe rs on or a n o t he r, reg ard le ss of an y pr ecau ti on s ta ke n; an d (2 ) do es no t no rm al ly

oc cu r in th at co m

m un it y ”).

To de te rm in e whe th er an act iv it y is ul tra -h azar do us , we m us t de fin e th e

sp eci fic act iv it y at is su e. The ke y to th is ta sk is de fin in g th e act iv it y at th e rig ht le ve l

of ge ne ral it y

. On th e on e ha nd

, de sc rib in g an act iv it y at a hi gh le ve l of ge ne ral it y

–

su ch as de sc rib in g th e act iv it y in th is cas e as m erel y “ cam pi ng ”
– wou ld te nd to m ak e

th e act iv it y a “ m at te r of co m m on u s ag e” bu t wou ld no t ta ke in to acco un t rel ev an t

di st in gu is hi ng ch arac te ris ti cs

. On th e ot he r ha nd

, de sc rib in g an act iv it y at a m in ut e
le ve l of ge ne ral it y – su ch as “ cam pi ng on Ju ne 11

, 20 10

, at a pa rti c u l a r t i me an d

As su ch

, we ne ed no t reac h th e qu es ti on whe th er th e co ll ect ed fees were us ed 3

m erel y to “ red uc e or of

fs et co st s an d el im in at e lo ss es fr o m recr eat io na l us e.” See
Ark . Cod e Ann . § 1 8- 11 -3 02 (2 )(B) (20 16 ).

-1 1-lo cat io n in Ouc hi ta Nati on al Fo res t”
– wou ld m ak e an y act iv it y “ un co m m on ” si m pl y
be cau se it is no t pr eci se ly th e sa m e as it s cl os e rel at iv es

. Ark an sa s la w in di cat es th at

th e ap pr op ria te le ve l of ge ne ral it y ta ke s in to acco un t so m e pa rti cu la riz in g fact or s,

su ch as di st in ct an d ap pr eci ab le ris ks th at m ig ht ari se fro m en ga gi ng in an act iv it y in

a sp eci fic area

. Cf. Carr

, 3 7 0 S

. W .3d at 83 9 (h ol di ng , in a cas e in vo lv in g cab le s

st ru ng acro ss tra il s freq ue nt ed by fo ur

- w h e e l e r s, th at “ [i]t was no t th e ha ng in g of a
cab le pe r se th at co ns ti tu te d th e ul tra -h azar do us act iv it y , bu t th e h a n gi ng of an

un m ark ed cab le at a da ng ero us he ig ht in an area in whi ch th e la nd own er kn ows th ere

are pe op le tra ve li ng on fo ur -wh eel ers ”). W e co nc lu de th at th e act iv it y at is su e in th is

cas e is “ cam

pi ng in a 10 0- y ear flo od pl ai n.” Thi s de sc rip ti on ap pr op ria te ly pe gs th e
de fin it io n to th e kn owl ed ge th at p l a i n t iff s su gg es t th e Uni te d St at es ha d or sh ou ld

ha ve ha d reg ard in g th e na tu re of th e da ng er po se d by a 10 0- y ear flo od pl ai n, wit ho ut

i n c l u d i ng no n- sa li en t at tri bu te s of th e tra ge dy. Cf. id

. at 83 9 (in cl ud in g in th e
de fin it io n of th e act iv it y th at th e cab le was hu ng in an area in “ whi ch th e la nd own er

kn [ew] the re [we]re p eo pl e tr av el in g o n fo ur -wh eel ers ”).

So de fin ed

, th e act iv it y is a co m m on recr eat io na l act iv it y

. The reco rd in di cat es

th at cam pi ng wit hi n a 10 0- y ear flo od pl ai n is no t an un co m m on recr eat io na l act iv it y

in Ark an sa s. Cam

pi ng ne ar a wate r so ur ce po se s so m e ris ks

, bu t cam pe rs , fis he rm en , 4

an d ot he r o u t d o o rs m en freq ue nt ly vi si t riv ers an d st ream s to acce ss th e un iq ue

recr eat io na l act iv it y op po rtu ni ti es th ey pr ov id e, ev en whe n do in g s o pl aces th em
wit hi n di st an ce of th e 10 0- y ear flo od pl a i n

. Bec au se th is act iv it y is a “ m at te r of

co m m on us ag e,” ARUS’s im m un it y wou ld ex te nd to a pr iv at e la nd own er faci ng th is

W e d i s a g r e e wit h pl ai nt iff s’ co nt en ti on th at th is arg um en t was im pr op erl y 4

rai se d in a rep ly br ie f in th e di st ric t co ur t. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Cas te ll an os , 60 8 F.3 d
10 10

, 10 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ Not ev ery ne w arg um en t, or s h i f t i n ap pr oa ch

,
co ns ti tu te s t he rai si ng of a ne w is su e.”).

-1 2-cl ai m

. And be cau se a pr iv at e la nd own er woul d be im m un e un de r th e ARUS, th ere 5

is no juri sd ic ti on un de r th e FTCA fo r pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s ag ai ns t t he Uni te d S ta te s. 6

II I. Con cl us io n

The flo od in g of th e Lit tl e Mi ss ou ri Ri ve r was a de va st at in g tra ge dy. W e m us t

res ol ve th e c l a i ms ari si ng fro m th at tra ge dy by de te rm in in g th e ex te nt of fed eral

im m un it y un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s A c t an d th e Ark an sa s Rec reat io na l Use

St at ut e. Bec au se we co nc lu de th at un de r Ark an sa s la w a pr iv at e la nd own er wou ld

be im m un e fro m pl ai nt iff

s’ cl ai m s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l fo r la ck of

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

.

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

Pl ai nt iff s arg ue ag ai ns t th is co nc lu si on by pr es si ng ot he r, m or e pa rti cu la riz ed 5

de fin it io ns : ei th er “ cam

pi ng in an RV in a fla sh flo od zo ne , wit h no warn in gs po st ed

, du rin g a fla sh flo od w a t c h ( a nd la te r warn in g) ,” or “ lo cat in g th e cam ps it es in a flo od pl ai n, in a na rro w va ll ey be twee n st eep m ou nt ai ns , wit ho ut po st in g an y si gn s or
pr ov id in g an y warn in gs ev en du rin g a fla sh flo od warn in g.” As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, we be li ev e th es e de fin it io ns im po rt feat ur es of th e sp eci fic ev en t in qu es ti on , rat he r th an th e ge ne ral na tu re of th e act iv it y

. Eve n if we were to a c c ep t pl ai nt iff s’ de fin it io n, ho wev er, A RUS woul d st il l gr an t im m un it y , be cau se th e pl ai nt iff s wou ld be un ab le

to sh ow act ua l kn owl ed g e of th e pa rti cu la riz ed ris k in he ren t to th ei r m or e sp eci fic
de fin it io ns

. See Ro ed er, 43 2 S.W .3d at 63 2 n.5 (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e “ act iv it y m us t be

act ua ll y kn own to th e own er to be da ng ero us ”). Pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m s are ba se d on a “ 50 0

y ear” flo od ev en t th at wen t far be y on d th e sc op e of th e flo od ris k of whi ch pl ai nt iff s al le ge th e Uni te d St at es ei th er was or sh ou ld ha ve be en aware

. The li m it ed ev id en ce of kn owl ed ge of m in or flo od in g e v e n t s wit hi n a 10 0- y ear flo od pl ai n is in su ffi ci en t

to sh ow act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e da ng er to hu m an li fe po se d by a m or e se rio us flo od

ev en t.

W e th eref

or e ne ed no t di sc us s o th er i ss ue s rel at ed to th is ex cep ti on , s uc h as 6

whe th er t he Uni te d S ta te s ac te d m al ic io us ly.

-1 3-