## Facts

- Virl Earles was injured in a nighttime boating collision in Huntington Harbor, California, on October 27, 1984.
- A 20-foot recreational boat, WHISKEY RUNNER, entered the harbor at a high speed and struck “Oscar 8,” an unlit U.S. Navy mooring buoy; the boat sank immediately.
- The accident resulted in five deaths and injuries to four passengers, including Earles.
- Claimants alleged the Navy negligently failed to illuminate or adequately mark Oscar 8, creating a hazard to nighttime navigation.
- Earles and others pursued claims against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) in related federal admiralty proceedings.
- After a bench trial, the district court found both Earles and the United States negligent, allocated fault 50/50, and awarded damages accordingly.
- The United States appealed, arguing the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) discretionary function exception (DFE) applies to SIAA suits and bars liability for the Navy’s buoy-lighting/marking decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTCA discretionary function exception applies to claims brought under the Suits in Admiralty Act.
2. If so, whether the Navy’s decisions regarding whether and how to light or mark the Oscar 8 buoy fall within the discretionary function exception, barring recovery.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that the FTCA discretionary function exception applies to SIAA claims.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for the district court to determine, under the DFE framework, whether the Navy’s conduct concerning Oscar 8 is protected discretionary conduct.
- The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether the Navy was immune on the existing record, emphasizing that application of the DFE requires a conduct-specific analysis.

## Legal Principles

- The SIAA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to an implied discretionary function limitation consistent with FTCA doctrine, so the United States is not exposed to broader maritime tort liability than under analogous non-maritime tort claims.
- Discretionary function analysis focuses on the nature of the challenged conduct, not the actor’s rank or agency status.
- The DFE applies when (1) the conduct involves judgment or choice (rather than execution of a mandatory directive) and (2) the judgment is of the kind grounded in social, economic, or political policy that Congress intended to shield from judicial second-guessing.
- Where the DFE applies, courts lack authority to impose tort liability for the protected policy-based governmental decisions.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ruled that SIAA claims incorporate the FTCA discretionary function exception, vacated the judgment allocating negligence between Earles and the United States, and remanded for a determination whether the Navy’s buoy lighting/marking decisions were discretionary policy-based choices that bar liability.


Earles v. United States, 935 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1991)