## Facts

- John A. Soldano and his wife, Denise, rode a motorcycle westbound on Big Oak Flat Road in Yosemite National Park on June 23, 1998.
- The posted speed limit was 35 m.p.h., and the Soldanos were traveling about 30–35 m.p.h.
- Near Cascade Creek Bridge, the road curved around a granite mountain that limited sight distance.
- The Soldanos encountered a van stopped in their lane, waiting to turn left across double solid yellow lines into a vista point.
- Unable to stop in time, John Soldano swerved into the oncoming lane and collided head-on with an oncoming van, suffering injuries that left him a paraplegic.
- The Soldanos sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligent road design and maintenance, inadequate warnings and signage, unsafe vista-point configuration, and negligent establishment of the 35 m.p.h. speed limit.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, finding some claims unsupported by evidence and holding the rest barred by the FTCA discretionary function exception.

## Issues

1. Whether claims challenging road design, maintenance, vista-point configuration, and warning signage were barred by the FTCA discretionary function exception.
2. Whether a claim that the government negligently set an unsafe 35 m.p.h. speed limit was barred by the discretionary function exception, or instead constrained by adopted Park Road Standards (including stopping-sight-distance criteria).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States on claims based on road design, vista-point configuration, and warning signage, holding those decisions were discretionary and policy-based.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on the speed-limit claim, holding the discretionary function exception did not bar a claim that the posted speed violated objective safety criteria in the Park Road Standards.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to the speed-limit claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, the United States is not liable for claims based on discretionary functions or duties, even if discretion is abused.
- The discretionary function exception applies when (1) the challenged conduct involves judgment or choice, and (2) the judgment is the type the exception protects because it is grounded in social, economic, or political policy.
- Agency decisions about road alignment, scenic-access features, and placement of warnings in a national park may qualify as protected discretionary decisions when they involve balancing safety, environmental and aesthetic objectives, and costs.
- When an agency has adopted specific, objective safety specifications (e.g., stopping-sight-distance tables tied to speed), alleged failure to follow those specifications may be treated as technical/professional judgment rather than policy-based discretion and may fall outside the exception.
- The presence of flexibility in implementing standards does not authorize ignoring the standards’ basic scientific safety requirements while still claiming discretionary-function immunity.

## Conclusion

The court held that the FTCA discretionary function exception shielded National Park Service decisions about road design, vista-point configuration, and signage, but did not automatically shield a speed-limit decision allegedly inconsistent with adopted, objective safety criteria; the speed-limit claim was remanded for further litigation.


Soldano v. United States, 453 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006)