Opinion ID: 2799825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Susceptible to Policy Analysis

Text: In deciding whether the nature of the Corps’ actions is “susceptible to policy analysis,” “[t]he focus of the inquiry is not on the agent’s subjective intent.” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325. Rather, we look to whether the decision being challenged is “grounded in social, economic, or political policy.” Id. at 323. Looking first at appellants’ contention that the Corps’ failure to warn was not a public policy decision, we find guidance in Layton v. United States, 984 F.2d 1496 (8th Cir. 1993). In Layton, we concluded the United States Forest Service’s “decision whether or not to issue warnings [was] susceptible to policy analysis [because] it involve[d] balancing safety against cost: the more effort the Forest Service expended to discover dangers and warn contractors of them, the greater the safety benefit but also the greater the cost to the government.” Id. at 1504-05; accord Hinsley, 516 F.3d at 673 (“[T]he decision to warn is, at its core, a policy decision.”); Demery v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 357 F.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (concluding the “decision . . . -6- whether to warn . . . is susceptible to a policy analysis” because it requires balancing interests like “increased safety . . . with . . . the cost of erecting warnings”). Appellants urge us to follow Cope v. Scott, 45 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1995), which held the discretionary function exception did not apply to the National Park Service’s failure to warn adequately about the nature of a road surface because the Park Service could not “articulate how the placement of additional or different signs on Beach Drive implicates . . . economic, social, or political concerns.” Id. at 452. The Park Service posted “no less than twenty-three traffic control, warning, and informational signs” on the section of road where an accident occurred, and there was no evidence that “engineering and aesthetic concerns” prevented the posting of additional warning signs. Id. at 451-52 (internal marks omitted). In Cope, the court found the Park Service had already made a specific policy decision to favor safety over aesthetics and this involved “engineering judgment” based on objective scientific principles not susceptible to policy analysis. Id. at 452. Our facts are different, and Cope is not binding. Appellants have not alleged or presented evidence to show the Corps had either adopted a safety policy or established priorities to guide the Corps’ decisions in maintaining Training Dike Road and the facilities at Gavins Point Dam, and appellants have failed to rebut the presumption that the Corps’ decision not to post warning signs was grounded in policy. See Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323-24. We next turn to appellants’ proposition that the Corps’ failure to replace the guardrails by a specific date was not itself a policy decision, but instead was a negligent failure to follow through on an earlier policy determination that the guardrails should be replaced. Appellants rely on Aslakson v. United States, 790 F.2d 688, 693 (8th Cir. 1986), for the proposition that “[w]here the challenged governmental activity involves safety considerations under an established policy rather than the balancing of competing public policy considerations, the rationale for the [discretionary function] exception falls away.” Appellants claim there is evidence -7- of an “established policy” of protecting the area where the accident occurred because “guardrails ha[d] been in place for at least thirty years.” Appellants argue the “policy was reaffirmed when Mr. Becker determined that the deteriorating guardrails should be replaced” by September 30. Unlike the government agency in Aslakson, whose “policy clearly required it to elevate its power lines if safety considerations compelled such action,” id., there was no clear policy that bound the Corps to prioritize safety considerations or maintain guardrails. As the district court observed, “[t]he Corps could have decided to issue a binding policy,” but chose not to. We recognize a distinction between the Corps (1) exercising discretion and deciding to replace the guardrails, and (2) deciding to issue a regulation or forming a policy requiring the installation or maintenance of guardrails. Because the Corps had the discretion to decide if, how, and when to replace the guardrails, it had the discretion to alter its initial decision to replace the guardrails by September 30 when the first contractor failed to perform. See, e.g., Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 331 (deciding conduct of bank regulators did not “fall outside the discretionary function exception” when the conduct “involved the mere application of technical skills and business expertise . . . at the operational level” rather than at a policy-making level, because “the challenged actions involved the exercise of choice and judgment”); Shansky v. United States, 164 F.3d 688, 695 (1st Cir. 1999) (determining “[a]n agency that has discretion to make policy choices” can adjust the “balance of relevant concerns” over time, and when the “overall policy decision [is] protected by the discretionary function exception,” the protection extends to “component” decisions). More importantly, the Corps need not have made a “conscious decision regarding policy factors,” so long as the decision to remove the guardrails was susceptible to a “balancing of public policy objectives.” Kiehn v. United States, 984 F.2d. 1100, 1105 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal marks omitted). Here, as the district court -8- observed, the Corps had to “balance the overall purpose of Training Dike Road with the recreational uses of the area, the allocation of funds,” the timing of repairs and maintenance work, “and the safety of drivers,” anglers, and other users. The Corps removed the guardrails and posts itself to save money and to expedite the project—both reasons reflect the discretionary exercise of choice and judgment. When the first contractor, C.B.M.C., failed to perform in accordance with the September 30 schedule, the Corps exercised choice and judgment to retain a new contractor with a revised schedule, yet no guardrails were at the site on October 9, 2011. We conclude the Corps’ discretionary actions were “susceptible to policy analysis” within the meaning of Gaubert.