Young v. United States, No. 13-35287 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDonna and Gerald Young and their minor daughter filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680(a), against the United States for negligently failing to warn visitors at Mount Rainier National Park of a hazard that the National Park Service both knew of and created. Donna had fallen into a twelve-foot-deep hole that formed underneath the snow, which was created by the heat of a transformer, near the Park's main visitor center and sustained several injuries. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Service's decision not to warn of the latent dangers associated with the transformer was a decision "totally divorced" from the policies that the government has identified as the basis for its decision. Where, as here, warning against a hazard known to and created by the Service would not implicate concerns for access, visitor enjoyment, or environmental preservation, the only policy the Service must consider is one it appears to have ignored: visitor safety. The court concluded that the Service's decision not to warn of a hazard that it knew of and created - that it placed near a visitor center serving 1 million visitors annually - cannot be shielded by the FTCA's discretionary function exception. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Federal Tort Claims Act. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a Federal Tort Claims Act action brought against the United States for negligently failing to warn visitors at Mount Rainier National Park of a known hazard. Donna Young sustained severe injuries when she fell into a twelve-foot-deep hole that had formed underneath the snow near a buried transformer in an area near the Park’s main visitor center, and she sued the United States for damages relating to the injuries. The district court dismissed Young’s complaint as barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The panel held that the National Park Service’s decision not to warn of the known hazard was not susceptible to policy considerations, and therefore it was not protected under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The panel held that the district court erred in determining, at least at this stage, that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
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.