discretionary function exception in Iowa

2016See Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 366 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a university’s decision whether to keep its library open during a severe winter storm); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 239–40 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a city’s decision whether to excavate an abandoned landfill); cf. MS Tabea Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 636 F.3d 161, 168 (5th Cir. 2011) (concluding the federal discretionary-function exception barred “failure to dredge claims”).

2016See Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 366 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a university’s decision whether to keep its library open during a severe winter storm); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 239-40 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a city’s decision whether to excavate an abandoned landfill); cf. MS Tabea Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 636 F.3d 161, 168 (5th Cir.2011) (concluding the federal discretionary-function exception barred “failure to dredge claims”).

2022Our supreme court followed the United States Supreme Court’s lead by holding that the discretionary-function exception “protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.” Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 364 (quoting Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 536–37 (1988)).

2022Unless a governmental entity can demonstrate that when it exercised its judgment, it genuinely could have considered and balanced factors 9 supported by social, economic, or political policies, we will not recognize the discretionary function immunity. 801 N.W.2d at 561 (quoting Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 366 ).

2016Because the State “has not articulated any . . . policy concerns central to its actions, it has not met its burden to show the discretionary function immunity applies.” Messerschmidt v. City of Sioux City, 654 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Iowa 2002).

2016Because the State “has not articulated any ... policy concerns central to its actions, it has not met its burden to show the discretionary function immunity applies.” Mes serschmidt v. City of Sioux City, 654 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Iowa 2002).

2016Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[L]iability . . . is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003).

2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003).

2022Our supreme court followed the United States Supreme Court’s lead by holding that the discretionary-function exception “protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.” Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 364 (quoting Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 536–37 (1988)).

2011In Goodman v. City of LeClaire, 587 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa 1998), we abandoned the planning/operational bright-line test and adopted the two-prong analysis advocated in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to determine whether the discretionary function exception was applicable in a negligent excavation claim brought against a city under the Municipal Tort Claims Act. 587 N.W.2d at 238 (adopting the Berkovitz two-step analysis).

2011Dist., 656 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 2002) (“Because the discretionary function exception has its genesis in the federal tort claims act, we have been guided by federal decisions applying its mandate.”); Shelton v. State, 644 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 2002) (“The Tort Claims Act is especially appropriate for applying the sometimes criticized but familiar rule that we are guided by federal decisions interpreting federal statutes on which our own statutes are modeled.”); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 236 (“We have recognized that the legislature intended the Iowa State Tort Claims Act to have the same effect as th

2011Dist., 656 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 2002) (“Because the discretionary function exception has its genesis in the federal tort claims act, we have been 35 guided by federal decisions applying its mandate.”); Shelton v. State, 644 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 2002) (“The Tort Claims Act is especially appropriate for applying the sometimes criticized but familiar rule that we are guided by federal decisions interpreting federal statutes on which our own statutes are modeled.”); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 236 (“We have recognized that the legislature intended the Iowa State Tort Claims Act to have the same effect as

2011For this reason, we have given great weight to relevant federal decisions interpreting the federal act.” (Citation omitted.)); Butler v. State, 336 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Iowa 1983) (The state discretionary function exception is “identical to the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and we are aided by federal interpretations of that provision.” (Citation omitted.)); see also Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 340 N.W.2d 251, 252 (Iowa 1983) (“Because our statute is based on the federal Tort Claims Act, we assume our legislature intended it to have the same meaning

2011For this reason, we have given great weight to relevant federal decisions interpreting the federal act.” (Citation omitted.)); Butler v. State, 336 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Iowa 1983) (The state discretionary function exception is “identical to the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and we are aided by federal interpretations of that provision.” (Citation omitted.)); see also Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 340 N.W.2d 251, 252 (Iowa 1983) (“Because our statute is based on the federal Tort Claims Act, we assume our legislature intended it to have the same meaning

2022See id. at 555 (“The discretionary function exception is inapplicable when a statute, regulation, or policy requires a course of action for an employee to follow.”).

2022Unless a governmental entity can demonstrate that when it exercised its judgment, it genuinely could have considered and balanced factors 9 supported by social, economic, or political policies, we will not recognize the discretionary function immunity. 801 N.W.2d at 561 (quoting Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 366 ).

2022Iowa Code § 670.1 (2).4 “The general rule is clear; liability is the rule and immunity the exception.” Madden v. City of Eldridge, 661 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Iowa 2003). “[W]e will narrowly construe the discretionary function exception” and immunity is available only if the two-part Berkovitz test is satisfied.

2022Id. (citing Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 536–37 (1988)).

2011See Ashford v. United States, 511 F.3d 501, 505 (5th Cir.2007) (holding summary judgment improper where inmate claimed he raised safety concerns during intake interview which would, under prison policy, have required him to be put in solitary confinement until an investigation could be conducted); see also Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138, 146-47 (Iowa 2010) (holding the discretionary function doctrine had no application because the State had no discretion in determining whether the bridge could be designed and built to encroach on a floodway). 3.

2011Although we have previously cited Gaubert, see Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 238 ; Schneider, 789 N.W.2d at 147 , it does not appear that we have adopted this presumption, but rather our analysis in our prior discretionary function cases áre more in line with Justice Scalia’s analysis in determining whether the discretionary function exception is applicable.

2015Dist., 652 N.W.2d 439, 442 (Iowa 2002) (finding school’s decision to hire, retain, and supervise a teacher lacked broader policy considerations that the legislature intended to insulate from liability); City of Cedar Falls, 617 N.W.2d at18–19 (finding discretion function immunity inapplicable for the negligent death of a student as the supervising teacher’s judgments did not involve broader considerations of public policy). 11 entitled to immunity under the discretionary function exception.

2003If the State’s conduct cannot be “appropriately the product of judgment or choice, then there is no discretion in the conduct for the discretionary function exception to protect.” Id. (citation omitted).

2016Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[L]iability . . . is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003).

2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003).

1986We established guidelines for determining whether an act fell within the discretionary function exception by adopting the federal test for an identical exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) (1982), which involves classifying the act as either “planning” or “operational.” Stanley v. State, 197 N.W.2d 599, 602-04 (Iowa 1972).

1977This court has dealt with the discretionary function exception of section 25A.14(1) in two fairly recent cases, Stanley v. State, 197 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 1972) and Seiber v. State, 211 N.W.2d 698 (Iowa 1973), which, on the basis of factual distinctions present therein, reached contrary results.

2016See Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 366 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a university’s decision whether to keep its library open during a severe winter storm); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 239–40 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a city’s decision whether to excavate an abandoned landfill); cf. MS Tabea Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 636 F.3d 161, 168 (5th Cir. 2011) (concluding the federal discretionary-function exception barred “failure to dredge claims”).

2016See Anderson, 692 N.W.2d at 366 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a university’s decision whether to keep its library open during a severe winter storm); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 239-40 (concluding the discretionary-function exception applied to a city’s decision whether to excavate an abandoned landfill); cf. MS Tabea Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 636 F.3d 161, 168 (5th Cir.2011) (concluding the federal discretionary-function exception barred “failure to dredge claims”).

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39, 43-44 (1st Cir.2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[djeciding how to classify pri

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39, 43-44 (1st Cir.2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[djeciding how to classify pri

1998We cited with approval this passage in Nord *237 brock v. State, 395 N.W.2d 872, 876 (Iowa 1986), in applying the discretionary function exception of the Iowa Tort Claims Act to the conduct of bank examiners who were given broad statutory powers in bank examinations and supervision.

1998In Nordbrock, we cited with approval these two factors and applied them in concluding that the negligent acts alleged against field bank examiners fell within the discretionary function exception. 395 N.W.2d at 876 . 2.

2011The basis for the discretionary function exception is to “ ‘prevent judicial “second guessing” of ... administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy’ through tort litigation, thereby protecting [states] ‘from liability that would seriously handicap efficient government operations.’ ” Ette, 656 N.W.2d at 67 (quoting Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 237 ). [T]he primary factor in determining whether a particular activity qualifies as a discretionary function is whether the decision to act involves the evaluation of broad policy factors.

2011Dist., 656 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 2002) (“Because the discretionary function exception has its genesis in the federal tort claims act, we have been guided by federal decisions applying its mandate.”); Shelton v. State, 644 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 2002) (“The Tort Claims Act is especially appropriate for applying the sometimes criticized but familiar rule that we are guided by federal decisions interpreting federal statutes on which our own statutes are modeled.”); Goodman, 587 N.W.2d at 236 (“We have recognized that the legislature intended the Iowa State Tort Claims Act to have the same effect as th

1998Again, the Court acknowledged that “it is unnecessary — and indeed impossible — to define with precision every contour of the discretionary function exception.” Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 813 , 104 S.Ct. at 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 674 .

1998Again, the Court acknowledged that “it is unnecessary — and indeed impossible — to define with precision every contour of the discretionary function exception.” Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 813 , 104 S.Ct. at 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 674 .

1985Butler v. State, 336 N.W.2d 416, 419-20 (Iowa 1983); Lloyd v. State, 251 N.W.2d 551, 555-58 (Iowa 1977); Stanley v. State, 197 N.W.2d 599, 602-04 (Iowa 1972).

1983Lloyd, 251 N.W.2d at 556 .

2011We held that “[u]nless a governmental entity can demonstrate that when it exercised its judgment, it genuinely could have considered and balanced factors supported by social, economic, or political policies, we will not recognize the discretionary function immunity.” Id. at 366 (citing Graber, 656 N.W.2d at 165 ).

2011We held that “[u]nless a governmental entity can demonstrate that when it exercised its judgment, it genuinely could have considered and balanced factors supported by social, economic, or political policies, we will not recognize the discretionary function immunity.” Id. at 366 (citing Graber, 656 N.W.2d at 165 ).

2011Sledge v. United States, 723 F.Supp.2d 87, 96-97 (D.D.C.2010) (citing numerous cases).

2011Sledge v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 87 , 96–97 (D.

2011Cf. Cohen v. United States, 151 F.3d 1338, 1343 (11th Cir.1998) (noting that “even though a statute or regulation imposes a general duty on a government agency the discretionary function exception may still apply if the agency retains sufficient discretion in fulfilling that duty”); Ochran v. United States, 117 F.3d 495, 500 (11th Cir.1997) (holding the use of the language “shall ... protect” did not mean that the regulation “left no room for the [U.S. Attorney] to exercise judgment or choice” about how to protect witnesses).

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39, 43-44 (1st Cir.2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[djeciding how to classify pri

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39, 43-44 (1st Cir.2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[djeciding how to classify pri

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39 , 43–44 (1st Cir. 2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohan, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[d]eciding how to classify p

2011See Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004) (applying a two-part test for discretionary immunity to actions of city in constructing trail); White v. Robinson, 260 S.W.3d 463, 472 (Tex.Ct.App.2008) (holding referendum sponsors lacked standing to challenge city’s construction of, and refusal to enforce, an adopted proposition).

2011For this reason, we have given great weight to relevant federal decisions interpreting the federal act.” (Citation omitted.)); Butler v. State, 336 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Iowa 1983) (The state discretionary function exception is “identical to the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and we are aided by federal interpretations of that provision.” (Citation omitted.)); see also Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 340 N.W.2d 251, 252 (Iowa 1983) (“Because our statute is based on the federal Tort Claims Act, we assume our legislature intended it to have the same meaning

2011For this reason, we have given great weight to relevant federal decisions interpreting the federal act.” (Citation omitted.)); Butler v. State, 336 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Iowa 1983) (The state discretionary function exception is “identical to the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and we are aided by federal interpretations of that provision.” (Citation omitted.)); see also Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 340 N.W.2d 251, 252 (Iowa 1983) (“Because our statute is based on the federal Tort Claims Act, we assume our legislature intended it to have the same meaning

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39, 43-44 (1st Cir.2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[djeciding how to classify pri

2011See, e.g., Santana-Rosa v. United States, 335 F.3d 39 , 43–44 (1st Cir. 2003) (finding prison’s decisions regarding maintenance of cleaning supplies and inmate work assignments are susceptible to policy-related analysis and therefore inmate’s FTCA claim for failure to protect him from other inmate was held to fall within the discretionary function exception); Cohan, 151 F.3d at 1344 (holding discretionary function exception shielded federal prisoner’s claim asserting Bureau of Prisons negligently assigned his attacker to a minimum security prison on the basis that “[d]eciding how to classify p

2011See Ashford v. United States, 511 F.3d 501, 505 (5th Cir.2007) (holding summary judgment improper where inmate claimed he raised safety concerns during intake interview which would, under prison policy, have required him to be put in solitary confinement until an investigation could be conducted); see also Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138, 146-47 (Iowa 2010) (holding the discretionary function doctrine had no application because the State had no discretion in determining whether the bridge could be designed and built to encroach on a floodway). 3.

2011See Ashford v. United States, 511 F.3d 501, 505 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding summary judgment improper where inmate claimed he raised safety concerns during intake interview which would, under prison policy, have required him to be put in solitary confinement until an investigation could be conducted); see also Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138 , 146–47 (Iowa 2010) (holding the discretionary function doctrine had no application because the State had no discretion in determining whether the bridge could be designed and built to encroach on a floodway). 3.