Ronald D. Routh v. United States

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 9573·941 F.2d 853·1991 WL 145868·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17556·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6278
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 199190-35536California2,349 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, we hold that a contracting officer’s failure to require a particular piece of safety equipment on a contractor’s machinery is not a discretionary function shielded from tort liability. The judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed.

I

Background.

The United States Forest Service (United States) awarded Coastal, Inc. a contract on a road clearing project in Alaska. In September, 1985, appellee Ronald Routh was operating a backhoe for Coastal. The backhoe did not have a falling object protection system (FOPS) and Routh was injured when trees he was maneuvering with the backhoe fell onto the machine.

In September, 1988, Routh filed a complaint against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that the United States was negligent in its supervision of the project. Specifically, Routh maintains that the contracting officers (United States Forest Service agents) were aware that the backhoe was not equipped with a FOPS but failed to take necessary steps to require the contractor to remedy the deficiency.

The United States filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.