United States v. S. A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines) - 467 U.S. 797, 104 S. Ct. 2755 (1984)

Rule:

It is unnecessary to define with precision every contour of the discretionary function exception. However, it is possible to isolate several factors useful in determining when the acts of a government employee are protected from liability by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(a). First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies in a given case. The exception covers not only agencies of government but all employees exercising discretion. Thus, the basic inquiry concerning the application of the discretionary function exception is whether the challenged acts of a government employee -- whatever his or her rank -- are of the nature and quality that Congress intended to shield from tort liability. Second, the discretionary function exception plainly was intended to encompass the discretionary acts of the government acting in its role as a regulator of the conduct of private individuals. This emphasis upon protection for regulatory activities suggests an underlying basis for the inclusion of an exception for discretionary functions in the Federal Tort Claims Act: Congress wished to prevent judicial "second-guessing" of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort.

Facts:

Plaintiff airline owned an aircraft, which caught on fire, killing the majority of passengers. The aircraft had previously been certified to be in conformity with minimum standards according to the standards of defendant government agency. Plaintiff brought suit against government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2671 et seq., seeking damages for the destroyed aircraft. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, which the court of appeals reversed. Defendant government sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Was the tort action against the United States based upon the FAA's aircraft certification process precluded by the discretionary function exception to Federal Tort Claims Act? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that recovery against the United States was barred under the discretionary function exception. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) implementation of the spot-check mechanism for compliance review was plainly discretionary, and the discretionary function exception immunized the government from tort liability.