Patrazza v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a decision “was committed to the responsibility of the department, whose job was to weigh the costs and benefits of various approaches,” the decision to use unburied guardrail ends on unlimited access highways was protected by discretionary function
• finding the siting of a highway guardrail to be a discretionary function under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. c. 258, § 10(b)
• immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use were encompassed within discretionary function exception of § 10 [b]
• Commonwealth exempt from liability because decision to leave guardrail ends unburied except on limited access highways was discretionary
• the siting of highway guardrails is a discretionary function immune from suit under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act
• immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use were encompassed within discretionary function exception of § 10 [b]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).