## Facts

- Beach Drive is a two-lane roadway in Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C., maintained by the National Park Service (NPS), with sharp curves and poor alignment.
- The road functioned as a heavily used commuter route, with traffic substantially exceeding recommended levels for that road type.
- On a rainy evening in 1987, John R. Cope drove northbound when a southbound vehicle driven by Roland G. Scott slid into Cope’s lane on a curve and collided with him; Cope claimed neck and back injuries.
- Cope alleged the pavement at the accident location was worn and became slick when wet.
- During litigation, an NPS-commissioned engineering study characterized the area as high-accident and found the surface below acceptable skid-resistance levels; recommended improvements were labeled medium priority relative to other projects.
- Cope sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging (1) negligent road maintenance and (2) negligent failure to warn via adequate signage about dangerous conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether NPS decisions about resurfacing and maintenance prioritization were barred by the FTCA discretionary function exception.
2. Whether NPS decisions about placement and adequacy of warning signs were barred by the FTCA discretionary function exception.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for the United States on the negligent maintenance claim because resurfacing timing and maintenance prioritization involved discretionary, policy-based resource-allocation judgments.
- Reversed summary judgment on the failure-to-warn/signage claim because the challenged signage decisions were not shown to be the type of policy-based judgments protected by the discretionary function exception.
- Remanded for further proceedings on the improper-warnings claim.

## Legal Principles

- The FTCA discretionary function exception applies when (1) the conduct involves judgment or choice (not controlled by mandatory law) and (2) the judgment is of the kind the exception protects—one grounded in social, economic, or political policy.
- Decisions allocating scarce resources and setting priorities for road maintenance and repairs typically qualify as protected policy judgments under the exception.
- Site-specific decisions about whether and how to warn motorists, including sign placement at a known hazard, may fall outside the exception when they reflect primarily engineering or safety judgment rather than policy judgment.
- The applicability of the exception turns on the nature of the decision and whether it is sufficiently policy-based, not on broad characterizations of governmental activity.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United States was immune from FTCA liability for claims attacking NPS maintenance prioritization and resurfacing choices, but not immune from claims that NPS failed to provide adequate warning signs at a dangerous location, allowing the signage claim to proceed.


Cope v. Scott, 45 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1995)