Chadd v. United States, No. 12-36023 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseRobert Boardman was attacked by a male goat while hiking in the Olympic National Forest. The goat gored Boardman's leg with its horns and severed his femoral artery. Boardman died of the wound and Park officials subsequently destroyed the goat hours after the attack. Plaintiff, on her own behalf and as representative of Boardman's estate, filed suit against the Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674, alleging that Park officials breached their duty of reasonable care by failing to destroy the goat in the years leading up to Boardman’s death. Under step one of the two-step process for evaluating whether a claim falls within the discretionary function exception, the court concluded that the government's actions in this case are discretionary in nature. In this case, there was no extant statute, regulation, or policy directive that required Park officials to destroy the goat prior to Boardman’s death. Further, Park officials had discretion in deciding how to manage the problematic goat. Under step two of the discretionary function analysis, the court concluded that the discretionary function applies because the decision to use non-lethal methods to manage the goat was susceptible to policy analysis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA.
Court Description: Federal Tort Claims Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a Federal Tort Claims Act action brought against the United States alleging claims arising from a fatal mountain goat attack on an Olympic National Park visitor. The plaintiff, the wife of the deceased Park visitor, alleged that Park officials breached their duty of reasonable care by failing to destroy the goat in the years leading up to her husband’s death. The FTCA’s discretionary function exception retains the United States’ sovereign immunity for any claim based on “the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government.” The panel held that the discretionary function exception applied. At step one of the discretionary function analysis, the panel held that there was no extant statute, regulation, or policy directive that required Park officials to destroy the goat prior to the Park visitor’s death, and Park officials had discretion in deciding how to manage the problematic goat. At step two of the analysis, the panel held that the Park officials’ decision to use non-lethal methods to manage the CHADD V. U.S. NAT’L PARKS SERVICE 3 goat was susceptible to policy analysis, and the discretionary function exception applied. Judge Berzon concurred with Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion and its application of the discretionary function exception to the facts of the case, but she believes that Miller v. United States, 163 F.3d 591, 593 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the government decision at issue need not be actually grounded in policy considerations, but need only be susceptible to a policy analysis), should be reconsidered. Judge Kleinfeld dissented because he would hold that the negligence in this case fell outside the discretionary function exception.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.