Williams by and Through Sharpley v. United States
581 F. Supp. 847, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10294 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) contains an implied discretionary function exception, meaning the United States does not waive its sovereign immunity for tort claims arising from the government's discretionary policy decisions in maritime matters. The decision by a government agency not to remove or mark a potential hazard to navigation that was originally placed for a valid governmental purpose is a discretionary function shielded from liability.
Facts:
- In 1944, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed six mooring dolphins, made of large pilings, in the Wilmington River to assist marine traffic near a swing bridge.
- In the 1950s, the swing bridge was replaced with a modern drawbridge, diminishing the dolphins' original purpose.
- Over several years, the Corps removed five of the six dolphins as they became hazards or lost their usefulness.
- The one remaining dolphin continued to be used occasionally by shrimp boats, dredges, and other private craft.
- Reidar Trosdal, Jr. was operating a private powerboat with Cynthia Cook as a passenger.
- Trosdal's boat struck the remaining mooring dolphin in the river.
- As a result of the collision, Trosdal was killed and Cook sustained serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The daughters of Reidar Trosdal, Jr., and Cynthia Cook (Plaintiffs) filed actions against the United States (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court.
- Plaintiffs sought damages under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) or, in the alternative, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- During pretrial proceedings, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The defendant, the United States, raised the issue of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the government's actions were protected by sovereign immunity under the discretionary function exception.
- The District Court considered the jurisdictional question based on the pretrial submissions before any trial commenced.
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 Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) waive the United States' sovereign immunity for claims arising from a government agency's discretionary decision not to remove or mark a potential navigational hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Alaimo, Chief Judge
No. The Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for claims arising from an agency's discretionary decision not to remove or mark a potential navigational hazard. The SAA contains an implied discretionary function exception, derived from the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which prevents courts from reviewing the policy-based judgments of executive branch agencies. While some circuits have interpreted the 1960 amendments to the SAA as a complete waiver of sovereign immunity, this court sides with the majority of circuits that have found such an exception is necessary to protect governmental policy-making from judicial second-guessing. The decision by the Army Corps of Engineers not to remove the dolphin, and the Coast Guard's decision not to mark it, were discretionary acts involving considerations of public policy, economic expediency, and administrative practicability. Because the dolphin was originally placed for a legitimate governmental purpose, it is not an 'obstruction' that the government has a mandatory duty to remove under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Therefore, the government's failure to act is a non-reviewable discretionary decision.
Analysis:
This decision contributes to a circuit split regarding the scope of the government's waiver of sovereign immunity under the Suits in Admiralty Act. By reading a discretionary function exception into the SAA, the court reinforced a majority view that aligns maritime tort law against the government with general tort law under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). This holding narrows the path for plaintiffs seeking to hold the government liable for negligence in maritime contexts, requiring them to prove that the alleged negligence stemmed from the violation of a mandatory, operational duty rather than a discretionary policy choice. The ruling underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere with the executive branch's policy decisions regarding the management of navigable waterways.
