Everett Todd Faber 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.

• stating that “[i]t is clear that the question of what constitutes an adequate warning is not typically related to broad public policy”
• discretionary function exception did not apply to failure to post warning sign by waterfalls where agency’s applicable plan set “three unambiguous directives” for solving specific known safety hazards
• “[A] failure to warn involves considerations of safety, not public policy.”
• “[A] failure to warn involves considerations of safety, not public policy.”
• “It would be wrong to apply the discretionary 26 function exception in a case where a low-level government employee made a judgment not to 27 post a warning sign, or to erect a guardrail, or to make a safer path.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).