Dorrell R. Coulthurst v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a negligent guard theory would not fall under the discretionary function exception because “[sjuch negligent acts neither involve an element of judgment or choice within the meaning of Gaubert nor are grounded in considerations of governmental policy”
• holding that a negligent guard theory would not fall under the discretionary function exception because \[s]uch negligent acts neither involve an element of judgment or choice within the meaning of Gaubert nor are grounded in considerations of governmental policy\
• concluding that the discretionary function exception would not apply to a prison official’s inspection of faulty weight equipment that caused plaintiff’s injuries if that inspection was performed in a ‘carelessly inattentive’ manner
• holding that, where there are “numerous potential ways” in which a defendant’s negligence may have triggered the alleged injury, the nature of the asserted conduct is potentially determinative of the applicability of the discretionary function exception
• discussing some of the circumstances in which an FTCA claim “involves negligence unrelated to any plausible policy objectives”
• applying tests laid out in United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322–23 (1991), and Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536–37 (1991)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).