Experts on both sides measured sound levels from 62 to 73 dBA on appellants' property. Appellants contended that these decibel levels constituted evidence of a nuisance. They sought compensatory and injunctive relief, including replacement tracks and construction of a sound wall to insulate their property. In November 1993, the court denied appellants' motion for reconsideration. They then filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellants nonetheless offer two objections that merit attention.
The record does not support this contention. This objection is puzzling, as it runs headlong into the essential logic of the discretionary function exception to governmental liability. It is true, as appellants argue, that such immunity could have substantial and even on occasion undesirable impact if those policies are ill-considered. But the hard fact remains that insulating policy determinations, good and bad, is the raison d' etre of the discretionary function exception. We note that accepting appellants' argument would, in this very case, create a conundrum of its own.