Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nieves-Rodriguez v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)
Nieves-Rodriguez v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)
No. 97-1651
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
_____________
___________________
____________________
Per Curiam.
___________
We
briefs submitted by
the
parties
and
the
record
on
appeal,
and
we
affirm.
Act, 28 U.S.C.
to the Federal
Tort Claims
Congress intended
social,
other
to
prevent
economic or political
two branches
2) the action
U.S.
courts
to protect.
531, 536-37
from
second-guessing
of government.
(1988).
by the
steel
We agree
pole barrier on
the perimeter of
accidents,
was the
Certainly no
exercise
statute or
the
of a
discretionary
function.
required or
prohibited
regulation
barrier,
so an
the base in
placement
of
element
involved.
of
choice
was
from suit.
Before the
accidents in this
link
fence
surrounding
the base.
-2-
go through the
The
chain
barrier prevented
The courts
decisions
protected under
Varig Airlines,
______________
the discretionary
function exception,
Ayer v. United
even
safety and
States, 902
______________________
F.2d 1038,
1044 (1st
Cir. 1990)
(quoting
_______
Boyle v. United
________________
Appellants'
negligently in
second claim
failing to
barrier;
decision
also was
exception.
alleges the
provide adequate
warning of
protected by
We express no
government acted
the
the
that that
discretionary function
since the
Affirmed.
_________
____________________
herein, has
states:
provided to
"The government,
all
those traveling
the
on
-3-