Honour Brown v. United States
790 F.2d 199, 1986 A.M.C. 2100, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25117 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shields the government from liability for negligence in its weather forecasting services, as decisions regarding the nature and quality of those services are policy judgments. Liability for a discretionary function does not arise from mere public reliance on the service, but only when the government's actions affirmatively create a danger or constitute a specific misrepresentation of fact.
Facts:
- On November 21, 1980, the F/V SEA FEVER and F/V FAIR-WIND departed Hyannis, Massachusetts, for Georges Bank to fish for lobster.
- Before and during their voyage, the crews listened to National Weather Service (NWS) radio forecasts, which predicted good weather.
- On Saturday morning, the vessels encountered a sudden, violent storm, far more severe than what had been forecast by the NWS.
- The storm, known as a 'bomb,' featured winds exceeding 70 knots and seas of 30 to 40 feet.
- As a result of the storm, the F/V FAIRWIND sank, causing the deaths of three crew members, and one crew member of the F/V SEA FEVER was swept overboard and lost.
- A key NWS weather buoy on Georges Bank (station 44003) had been malfunctioning sporadically for over two months prior to the storm.
- Due to the buoy's erratic performance, the National Meteorological Center had ceased transmitting its wind data to NWS forecasters in September 1980.
- Plans to repair or replace the malfunctioning buoy were delayed, which plaintiffs alleged was unreasonable.
Procedural Posture:
- Representatives for the deceased fishermen sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- After a non-jury trial, the district court found the government negligent for failing to repair the weather buoy and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.
- The United States (the government) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shield the government from liability for its alleged negligence in failing to repair a weather buoy, which resulted in an inaccurate weather forecast relied upon by mariners?
Opinions:
Majority - Bailey Aldrich
Yes. The discretionary function exception shields the government from liability because its decisions on how to operate the weather service are policy matters. While the government may be liable under the precedent of Indian Towing Co. if it creates a danger or misleads the public into reliance on a specific non-functioning safety device (like a lighthouse light being out), that precedent does not apply here. The government did not create the storm; it merely failed to adequately predict it. To hold that public reliance on a government service automatically creates a duty of due care would effectively nullify the discretionary function exception, as all government services are intended to be relied upon. The decisions regarding what equipment to use, how to allocate resources, and what quality of forecast to provide are precisely the kinds of political, social, and economic judgments that the exception was designed to protect from judicial second-guessing.
Concurring - Pettine
Yes. The discretionary function exception bars this suit because evaluating the government's failure to repair the buoy would require the court to assess the 'adequacy' of the weather service, a role precluded by this court's precedent in Chute. This case is different from Indian Towing because the fishermen's reliance was on the overall weather prediction, which is a complex product of many factors, not on an affirmative misstatement of fact about a specific component like the buoy. To allow courts to determine which components are necessary to maintain a certain quality of prediction would constitute impermissible interference with a discretionary government function.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the breadth of the discretionary function exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act, particularly concerning government services that involve scientific prediction and resource allocation. It clarifies that the 'induced reliance' theory of liability from Indian Towing is limited to situations where the government's negligence creates a specific, new danger or constitutes an affirmative misrepresentation, rather than merely providing an inadequate level of a discretionary service. The ruling protects government agencies from tort liability that would require courts to second-guess their internal policy, operational, and budgetary decisions. This makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to sue the government for alleged failures in informational or predictive services.
