Court Opinion

ID: 9487127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:08:51.628776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:06.603864
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The court today does what it must do. It follows our earlier decisions applying 33 U.S.C. § 702c. Our cases have broadly interpreted this statute to bar recovery as a result of injuries on lakes that may back up from dams built for purposes of flood control.
In recent years several decisions of other circuits have called into question the broad scope of this statute. Boyd v. United States Army, Corps of Eng’rs, 881 F.2d 895, 899-900 (10th Cir.1989), and Fryman v. United States, 901 F.2d 79 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 295, 112 L.Ed.2d 249 (1990). Boyd held that an injury in which a snorkler was killed by a motorboat was not a liability associated with flood control operations, as opposed to a recreational facility. 881 F.2d at 900. Fryman dealt with a diving accident in a recreational area, and while sustaining a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Corps of Engineers, left open the question of whether a recreational injury on a flood controlled lake could be actionable under the Tort Claims Act when the flood control activities did not increase the probability of the injury compared with the natural lake devoted to recreational use. 901 F.2d at 81-82.
Here, the record before the district court showed that no warning signs were posted in the designated swimming area. A representative of the Corps of Engineers stated in an affidavit that as a result of public demand, the Corps added recreational facilities in the 1980s, and recreation became an authorized purpose nationwide at Corps of Engineers flood control projects, including Coralville Reservoir. The Corps never changes the water level for recreational reasons. Indeed, the only exception to flood control purposes establishing the level of the lake is that each year in the fall the pool level is raised for migratory water fowl. In addition, an expert witness retained by Fisher’s counsel stated in an affidavit that with the gradually sloping nature of the beach and the water area in the designated aquatic recreational area, varying water levels due to flood control measures would not have a significant or important impact on increasing or lessening the hidden danger associated with diving into water too shallow for safe diving.
I think these facts, combined with the directions taken by other circuits, are sufficient for this court to consider this case en banc and probe more deeply into the application of the statute to cases of this kind. Were it to do so, I believe the record is sufficient to demonstrate that flood control purposes had nothing to do with this accident, but rather it occurred due to recreational purposes, a clearly established use for such lakes.