section 10 discretionary function exception in Massachusetts

2005Auth., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 36, 40 (1993) (immunity conferred where decision regarding security measures in public housing complex constituted discretionary function).

1994See also, Wheeler v. Boston Housing Authority, supra, 34 Mass.App.Ct. at 39-43 (decisions about providing adequate security for tenants in public housing projects are discretionary functions). 3 Lombardo further argues that the above decisions are not applicable to the supervision of students who are injured while away from the school premises.

2024Harry Stoller & Co. v. Lowell, 412 Mass. 139, 141 (1992).

1998L. c. 258, § 10(6). 7 The first step in determining whether a claim is foreclosed by the discretionary function exception in § 10(6) is to decide “whether the [government] actor had any discretion to do or not to do what the plaintiff claims caused him harm.” Harry Stoller & Co. v. Lowell, 412 Mass. at 141 .

2010As such, the issuance of the permit was a discretionary function and, therefore, was barred by § 10 (b). 21 See, e.g., Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use were encompassed within discretionary function exception of § 10 [b]); Drivas v. Barnett, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 75

2005Contrast Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Pina v. Commonwealth, 400 Mass. 408, 414-415 (1987) (immunity conferred where State employees who evaluated and processed claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits were performing discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use w

2010As such, the issuance of the permit was a discretionary function and, therefore, was barred by § 10 (b). 21 See, e.g., Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use were encompassed within discretionary function exception of § 10 [b]); Drivas v. Barnett, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 75

2005Contrast Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Pina v. Commonwealth, 400 Mass. 408, 414-415 (1987) (immunity conferred where State employees who evaluated and processed claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits were performing discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use w

1994See Cady v. Plymouth-Carver Regional School District, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 216-17 (1983) (unsuccessful challenge to school authorities’ allegedly negligent decision to allow two fellow students to return to school after a fight with plaintiff, leading plaintiff to leave school out of fear of further harassment of attack; “[m]anagement of student imbroglios, student discipline, and school decorum fall readily within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act”); 2 Wightman v. Methuen, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 280 (1988) (second grade student was injured by older student in playgroun

1993See Cady v. Plymouth-Carver Regional School District, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 216-17 (1983) (unsuccessful challenge to school authorities’ allegedly negligent decision to allow two fellow students to return to school after fight with plaintiff, leading plaintiff to leave school out of fear of further harassment or attack; “[m]anagement of student imbroglios, student discipline, and school decorum fall readily within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act”); 1 Wightman v. Methuen, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 280 (1988) (second-grade student was injured by older student in playground;

1994See Cady v. Plymouth-Carver Regional School District, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 216-17 (1983) (unsuccessful challenge to school authorities’ allegedly negligent decision to allow two fellow students to return to school after a fight with plaintiff, leading plaintiff to leave school out of fear of further harassment of attack; “[m]anagement of student imbroglios, student discipline, and school decorum fall readily within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act”); 2 Wightman v. Methuen, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 280 (1988) (second grade student was injured by older student in playgroun

1993See Cady v. Plymouth-Carver Regional School District, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 216-17 (1983) (unsuccessful challenge to school authorities’ allegedly negligent decision to allow two fellow students to return to school after fight with plaintiff, leading plaintiff to leave school out of fear of further harassment or attack; “[m]anagement of student imbroglios, student discipline, and school decorum fall readily within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act”); 1 Wightman v. Methuen, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 280 (1988) (second-grade student was injured by older student in playground;

2010As such, the issuance of the permit was a discretionary function and, therefore, was barred by § 10 (b). 21 See, e.g., Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use were encompassed within discretionary function exception of § 10 [b]); Drivas v. Barnett, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 75

2005Contrast Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Pina v. Commonwealth, 400 Mass. 408, 414-415 (1987) (immunity conferred where State employees who evaluated and processed claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits were performing discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use w

2005“The discretionary function exception is narrow, providing immunity only for discretionary conduct that involves policy making or planning.” Greenwood v. Town of Easton, 444 Mass. 467, 470 (2005) (Town’s failure to adequately secure telephone poles being used as parking barriers did not involve a high degree of planning and was not discretionary under section 10(b) (quotation omitted)).

2005Contrast Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 664 (2001) (immunity conferred where city’s decision not to erect fence on city property to prevent sledding was based on allocation of limited resources and, as such, was discretionary function); Pina v. Commonwealth, 400 Mass. 408, 414-415 (1987) (immunity conferred where State employees who evaluated and processed claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits were performing discretionary function); Patrazza v. Commonwealth, 398 Mass. 464, 469-470 (1986) (immunity conferred where design of highway guardrail and policy implementing its use w

2005Dobos v. Driscoll 404 Mass. 634, 651 (1989).

1994See Cady v. Plymouth-Carver Regional School District, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 216-17 (1983) (unsuccessful challenge to school authorities’ allegedly negligent decision to allow two fellow students to return to school after a fight with plaintiff, leading plaintiff to leave school out of fear of further harassment of attack; “[m]anagement of student imbroglios, student discipline, and school decorum fall readily within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act”); 2 Wightman v. Methuen, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 280 (1988) (second grade student was injured by older student in playgroun

1993Generally, discretionary actions under § 10(b) only concern those actions “characterized by [a] high degree of discretion and judgment involved in weighing alternatives and making choices with respect to public policy and planning.” Whitney v. Worcester, 373 Mass. 208, 218 (1977).

1993See Cady v. Plymouth-Carver Regional School District, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 211, 216-17 (1983) (unsuccessful challenge to school authorities’ allegedly negligent decision to allow two fellow students to return to school after fight with plaintiff, leading plaintiff to leave school out of fear of further harassment or attack; “[m]anagement of student imbroglios, student discipline, and school decorum fall readily within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act”); 1 Wightman v. Methuen, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 280 (1988) (second-grade student was injured by older student in playground;