Bachmann v. United States of America

Background

J.B., a minor, was hiking with family at Sweeney Ridge in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area on May 25, 2020. While exploring a World War II-era Coast Guard building, J.B. stepped on an unsecured steel plate. The plate tipped, and J.B. fell about five feet into a crawlspace, where he became pinned beneath the plate.

The plaintiffs—J.B., his parents Philippe and Megan Bachmann, and his minor sister H.B.—asserted claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Their operative complaint alleged premises liability, negligent undertaking, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The United States initially moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The court converted that motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 56 because the jurisdictional issue and the merits depended on overlapping factual questions.

Legal Framework

The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain personal-injury claims caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a government employee acting within the scope of employment, when a private person would be liable under the law where the conduct occurred.

The court applied California’s recreational-use statute. That statute generally gives landowners no duty to keep property safe for recreational users. One exception applies when the landowner willfully or maliciously fails to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition.

Under the California standard discussed by the court, willful misconduct requires evidence of: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the danger; (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury was probable rather than merely possible; and (3) a conscious failure to act to avoid the danger.

Court’s Analysis

The record showed that National Park Service employee Matthew Keene knew of a “small void space” at the building during a 2016 site visit. Another employee, Burleson, testified that the opening was not covered at that time. A survey report also included a photograph showing access to the crawlspace without a cover. The record did not show when or how the steel plate later came to be at the building, and there was no evidence that the government knew about the plate itself.

The United States argued that the relevant dangerous condition was the steel plate and that there was no evidence it knew the plate existed. The court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs’ alternative view—that the relevant dangerous condition was the opening itself—was reasonable. Because J.B. fell into the opening, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the government knew about the opening, understood the danger it posed, and consciously failed to address it between 2016 and 2020. That factual dispute prevented summary judgment on theories based on the opening.

The court also rejected the government’s argument that the plaintiffs’ three theories had to be dismissed because they were merely alternative theories under one negligence cause of action. The court stated that the government had not shown why summary judgment was required on some or all of those theories at that stage.

The court separately ruled that theories based solely on Burleson’s conduct or the government’s supervision of Burleson could not proceed. The court found no reasonable inference of willful misconduct from either Burleson’s conduct or the government’s supervision of that conduct. The court therefore granted summary judgment on those theories.

The government also argued, and the plaintiffs conceded, that the FTCA barred a jury trial and prejudgment interest. The court struck those requests from the complaint.

Disposition

The court converted the motion to summary judgment, granted the motion with respect to theories of liability based solely on Burleson’s conduct or the government’s supervision of that conduct, and otherwise denied the motion. It also struck the plaintiffs’ requests for a jury trial and prejudgment interest.