Court Opinion

ID: 9491705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:21:15.960271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:54.072123
License: Public Domain

STAHL, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Despite strong reservations, I joined the withdrawn panel opinion, see Irving v. United States, 1998 WL 152941 (1st Cir. Apr.8, 1998), because I was then bound by the interpretation of the discretionary function exception set forth in Irving v. United States, 909 F.2d 598 (1st Cir.1990) (Irving I). Having endorsed the decision of the en banc court to revisit Irving I, I now concur in the view, ably stated in Judge Selya’s majority opinion, that the discretionary function exception forecloses plaintiffs negligent inspection claim. Although the issue is close and no Supreme Court case is directly on point, I do not believe that, in a regulatory context that, is so obviously discretionary, Congress would intend to make actionable under the FTCA an ignored instruction from a superior to a subordinate that the subordinate perform a function that is otherwise discretionary (for policy-based reasons). To my mind, an ignored instruction of this sort is better conceptualized as an abuse of the discretion conferred by the regulatory regime. Such abuses of discretion are not within the reach of the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).