Opinion ID: 162773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Berkovitz First Prong

Text: 19 To prevail on the first prong, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the challenged decision involved no element of judgment or choice. Id. at 1102. They must show that Zion employees violated a federal statute, regulation, or policy that is both specific and mandatory. Aragon, 146 F.3d at 823. Plaintiffs point to three policies. They claim that Zion's failure to warn specifically of the algae hazard or to erect barriers at the Middle Emerald Pools constituted disobedience to (1) the National Park Service's Loss Control Management Guidelines (NPS-50); (2) Zion's Loss Control Management Program (Zion Management Plan, or Plan); and (3) the Zion safety committee's August 1995 action plan for dealing with hazards in the Emerald Pools area. We consider each in turn.
20 Plaintiffs argue that the NPS-50 required Zion to warn specifically of the algae hazard and otherwise protect against the danger of falling at the Middle Emerald Pools. The NPS-50 contains mandatory safety guidelines for the National Park Service (NPS). NPS-50, Ch. 1, at 2 (Jan. 1991). The issue before us is whether the guidelines are sufficiently specific to remove decisionmaking under them from the discretionary function exception. 21 Chapter 1 of the NPS-50 states that the objectives of the guidelines include (1) Reducing the frequency and severity of accidents and losses for employees and visitors and (2) Providing for the safety and health of the public (visitors) from recognized hazards in NPS operations, on NPS lands, and in NPS facilities. Id. at 1. 22 Chapter 22 specifies the minimum program requirements for protecting visitors from recognized hazards, and states that every effort should be made to identify the hazards in the park/area that have caused or have the potential to cause, injury, illness, death or property damage to park visitors. Id., Ch. 22, at 1. [A]ll areas will provide any special materials, signs, and programs to alert the public of potential dangers. Id. at 2. Brochures specific to the area should contain safety messages that direct attention to special hazards or attractions that could be potentially hazardous to the visitor, and the park safety officer should review the signing of the park and determine if it is appropriate for the area signed and if it is in good repair. Id. at 2-3. Park employees are responsible for identifying hazards within NPS areas that may cause injury, illness, death or property damage to park visitors and their property, and [s]hould be able to impart accurate information to [the] public about locations, activities, climate and special environmental threats. Id. at 5. 23 The appendix to the NPS-50 contains a checklist for NPS personnel to indicate compliance with the NPS-50's provisions. That checklist requires a yes or no response to a number of items, including (1) Deficiencies are corrected or the public otherwise protected or warned; (2) Brochures and other literature providing public safety information are available to all visitors; information is clearly identifiable and specific to existing hazards; (3) Warning signs carry specific safety information which are easy to read and understand; signs are posted in the proximity of the hazard; (4) Inter-divisional cooperation toward visitor safety is in evidence through information provided during interpretive programs, at entrance stations, by maintenance personnel, etc.; and (5) Accident/incident reports are reviewed to identify specific locations and sources of visitor injury; action plans are developed to mitigate problems. Id. at 31-32. 24 In our view, these provisions are not sufficiently specific to satisfy the first prong of the Berkovitz test. The NPS-50 certainly conveys the message that safety must be a priority, and it assists park management by focusing on a number of elements that should be encompassed by a safety program. But it does not dictate what actions park employees must take in response to particular problems. Indeed, the following language in the NPS-50's Introduction makes clear that safety decisions must be made in the special context of a national park and that park management retains substantial discretion: 25 Paradoxically, many of the natural features found in parks pose significant safety risks to the uninformed visiting public, yet those same features cannot be eliminated nor guarded against in the same manner that a prudent person would expect to find in an industrial or home setting. Therefore, NPS public safety efforts are focused on interpreting the values of the park's natural features and educating the visitor concerning the proper precautions one must take to have a safe and healthful journey at that specific park unit. 26 .... 27 This guideline has been prepared to provide both field units and office managers with sufficient information to develop a comprehensive safety and occupational health program. However, each area must design its own safety and occupational health effort based on local circumstances and operations. 28 Id., Introduction, at iii (emphasis added). 29 We agree with the Ninth Circuit's characterization of the NPS-50 in Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426 (9th Cir. 1996). There, the plaintiff had gravely injured himself when he dove off a bridge in Yosemite National Park. He claimed negligence with respect to inadequate warnings and the design and maintenance of the bridge. The court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the NPS-50 mandated particular warning signs. 30 Although the [NPS-50 and other NPS] policy manuals outline general policy goals regarding visitor safety, they do not set out the specific means by which the NPS employees are to meet these general goals. Furthermore, the policy manuals' broad mandate to warn the public of and protect it from special hazards involves the exercise of discretion in identifying such hazards, in determining which hazards require an explicit warning and in determining the precise manner in which to warn it of those hazards. 31 Id. at 1431. 32 In short, the NPS-50 does not remove Zion employees' choice or judgment regarding what measures to take. It does not specifically prescribe[ ] a course of action for an employee to follow. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536, 108 S.Ct. 1954. Hence, Plaintiffs cannot rely on the NPS-50 to remove the challenged conduct from the ambit of the discretionary function exception. Cf. Duke v. Dep't of Agric., 131 F.3d 1407, 1410 (10th Cir.1997) (While these [Forest Service] manuals emphasize safety and appropriate warnings[,] they are not specific enough to eliminate the Forest Service employees' choice regarding how to act in particular circumstances.); Tippett v. United States, 108 F.3d 1194, 1197 (10th Cir.1997) (NPS policy providing that [t]he saving of human life will take precedence over all other management actions is too general to remove the discretion from park employees' conduct); Zumwalt v. United States, 928 F.2d 951, 954 & n. 4 (10th Cir.1991) (national park's policy recommending improvements for hazardous or difficult to follow sections of a trail conferred substantial discretion upon park employees to determine which sections of the [t]rail have proven to be hazardous or difficult to follow[,] ... what type of improvements to make and where the improvements should be located....).
33 Plaintiffs next contend that the Zion Management Plan imposed non-discretionary duties upon Zion employees to correct immediately the hazard at the Middle Emerald Pools. The Zion Management Plan contains guidelines intended to complement the NPS-50 in establishing specific direction for safety at Zion; it also sets forth procedures for investigating and reporting hazards. Under the Plan, when a hazard is identified as being an imminent danger — defined as an immediately life threatening condition — persons must be removed from the scene and the danger must be correct[ed] immediately. App. 00092, 00097. When a hazard is determined to be a serious danger — one which may result in serious injury or illness persons must be removed from the scene and the danger must be correct[ed] within 30 days. App. 00092, 00097. Non-serious hazards must be correct[ed] within 45 days, and technical hazards must be correct[ed] within 60 days. App. 00092. 34 One might read the above language to mandate that Zion employees promptly eliminate any life-threatening condition in the park, thereby divesting those employees of discretion. But we do not think that these provisions of the Zion Management Plan can be construed so broadly. Rather, the commands appear to be addressing only man-made hazards, or perhaps temporary hazards caused by natural forces (such as a rock slide). The timing requirements (such as correct [the hazard] immediately) would make no sense if intended to require elimination of the numerous permanent, natural dangers which visitors may encounter at a national park. Is a precipice an immediately life threatening condition? How could the danger be eliminated immediately, or even within 30 days? Surely, the Plan does not require an unbreachable fence around the rim of every precipice. Cf. Valdez v. United States, 837 F.Supp. 1065, 1069 (E.D.Cal.1993) (rejecting interpretation of NPS-50 as an absolute directive because such an interpretation would require a fence or sign at every attraction that is conceivably hazardous), aff'd 56 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.1995). 35 Other provisions of the Plan indicate that it does not apply to permanent, natural hazards. For instance, the Plan's introduction states that it is the policy of the NPS to furnish employees, concessioners and contractors with places and conditions of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. App. 00081 (emphasis added). But a national park like Zion can never be free from permanent, natural hazards. In addition, the Safety Inspection Checklist, appended to the Management Plan, lists examples of the types of potential hazards that Zion employees must inspect and classify as imminent, serious, non-serious, or technical dangers. App. 00102. The examples include such matters as Electrical, Explosion Hazards, Flammable, Unsafe Practices or Procedures, and Roads and Trails. None of the examples are permanent, natural hazards. 36 Perhaps, despite the above indications to the contrary, the Plan's mandates to correct various dangerous conditions could be interpreted to encompass permanent, natural hazards. But such an interpretation is plausible only if correcting a danger means something short of eliminating the danger. For example, although it may be impossible to eliminate the danger posed by a precipice, one could say that barriers or signs can correct the problem. If the term correct is so interpreted, however, then the Plan does not remove discretion from Zion employees. They still must determine what, if anything, needs to be done to correct the hazard. The Plan fails to provide precise direction as to what suffices for a correction. See Blackburn, 100 F.3d at 1431. 37 We conclude that the Zion Management Plan does not exclude the conduct in this case from the discretionary function exception. 38
39 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Zion safety committee's August 1995 action plan prescribed a specific, non-discretionary course of action for Zion employees to follow with respect to the algae hazard at the Middle Emerald Pools. We disagree. 40 What the Plaintiffs term an action plan is a provision of an August 2, 1995, safety committee memorandum. That provision reads: 41 Several members of the Safety Committee have hiked to the Emerald Pools area since the last meeting to determine if additional accident prevention work is needed. This was not in response to any pending accidents, but only to review this area of the park. 42 The following action items were identified: 43 &#x2022; Reposition a few of the signs to more visible areas. 44 &#x2022; Consider natural barriers in some areas. 45 App. 00162. 46 After listing the suggested action items, the memorandum continues: Drawings or pictures will be developed showing these recommendations.  Id. (emphasis added). On its face, then, this document contains recommendations, not compulsory directives. Recommendations of Zion's safety committee are not mandatory; rather, the committee suggests a course of action to Zion's superintendent, who then decides whether to implement those recommendations. The recommendations did not deprive Zion management of discretion. 47 In sum, the guidelines and action plan relied on by Plaintiffs delegate extensive discretion to Zion managers. The managers must determine whether a hazard exists, the severity of the hazard, and whether physical barriers or signs are appropriate safety measures. When considering safety measures, they must assess such factors as whether the measures may actually encourage dangerous conduct by visitors (the existence of a barrier may cause visitors to underestimate the residual danger, and a sign warning of an extreme danger may cause visitors to minimize the peril identified by other signs); the size, placement, and content of signs; whether excessive signage may numb visitors; and whether signs or barriers are likely to withstand the elements (such as a flash flood). In addition, as discussed more fully below, the park managers must weigh any safety measure against its impact on the purposes of a national park. 48 Because no statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribed a course of action for Zion employees to follow, the challenged conduct was discretionary under the first prong of the Berkovitz test.