Lindgren v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
665 F.2d 978 (1982)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Eric A. Lindgren (plaintiff) was injured in a water-skiing accident when, south of Parker Dam, Lindgren’s ski struck the bottom of the river. Lindgren sued the United States (defendant) in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injury, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Lindgren alleged that the government agency that controlled the Parker Dam artificially altered the riverbed and water flow, creating dangerous conditions for recreational use of the river. Lindgren alleged that despite having knowledge of the danger, the government failed to warn of the dangerous conditions. The United States filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the discretionary-function exemption to the FTCA applied. The discretionary-function exemption provided that the FTCA did not apply if the government action giving rise to the cause of action was a discretionary action. The trial court granted the government’s motion, finding that the operation of the dam was a discretionary function exempt from the FTCA. On appeal, Lindgren argued that although the operation of the dam might have been discretionary, the government’s failure to warn of the dangerous condition was not a discretionary function.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Muecke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
