## Facts

- In March 1980, Mount St. Helens resumed eruptive activity, creating a continuing public-safety emergency and substantial uncertainty about the scope and direction of future eruptions.
- Governor Dixy Lee Ray responded by creating restricted access zones around the volcano, limiting entry largely to government, law-enforcement, and search-and-rescue personnel.
- To inform these decisions, Governor Ray consulted scientists and other emergency-management officials and formed a Mount St. Helens “watch group” that monitored conditions and reported developments.
- As volcanic activity continued in the weeks before May 18, Governor Ray revised and expanded the restricted zones more than once, while facing competing demands to keep areas open for residents, property owners, and economic interests.
- The May 18, 1980 eruption included a devastating lateral blast that traveled far beyond anticipated areas; the event was larger and affected a broader region than predictions had suggested.
- Fourteen people were killed by the eruption while located outside the restricted zones in effect at the time.
- Barbara Karr and other personal representatives of the decedents sued the State of Washington for wrongful death, alleging the Governor failed to use reasoned judgment and negligently defined the restricted zones too narrowly.
- Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State on the ground that the challenged decisions were discretionary governmental acts immune from tort liability, and the representatives appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the State was immune from wrongful-death tort liability because the Governor’s decisions creating and setting the boundaries of Mount St. Helens restricted zones were discretionary, policy-level decisions.
2. Whether the boundary-setting (“line drawing”) for the restricted zones should be treated as an operational/ministerial act subject to negligence liability rather than an immune planning-level choice.
3. Whether the representatives produced evidence that the Governor’s decisions were arbitrary or capricious such that discretionary immunity would not apply.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the State.
- The court held that the Governor’s establishment and modification of the restricted zones, including the selection of their boundaries, were discretionary decisions made at a high executive level during an emergency.
- The court concluded the challenged decisions involved policy judgment—balancing public safety, access, and other public considerations in conditions of scientific uncertainty—rather than routine implementation.
- The court found the record showed a reasoned decision-making process, including consultation with scientific advisers and ongoing monitoring; therefore, the decisions were not arbitrary or capricious.
- Because discretionary immunity applied, the State could not be held liable in tort for deaths that occurred outside the restricted zones.

## Legal Principles

- Washington’s statutory waiver of sovereign immunity does not impose tort liability for truly discretionary governmental acts involving basic policy choices.
- Discretionary immunity generally applies when: (1) the act involves a basic governmental policy decision, (2) it is made by an official with authority to make that policy choice, (3) it requires evaluation of competing public considerations, and (4) it is reached through a deliberate, reasoned process rather than arbitrary or capricious action.
- Courts distinguish immune planning-level decisions from non-immune operational acts that carry out established policy; “line drawing” may be immune when it is integral to the policy choice itself.
- Emergency-response decisions made under uncertainty, informed by scientific input and ongoing monitoring, are likely to be treated as discretionary policy judgments when they require balancing public risks and competing interests.

## Conclusion

In *Karr v. State*, the court held that Washington was immune from wrongful-death liability because Governor Ray’s decisions establishing and adjusting Mount St. Helens restricted-zone boundaries were high-level discretionary policy choices made through a reasoned process during an unfolding emergency, not operational negligence.


Karr v. State, 765 P.2d 316 (1988)