Coumou v. U.S.

Decision Date21 May 1997
Docket Number95-30697,Nos. 95-30219,s. 95-30219
Citation114 F.3d 64
PartiesBram C. COUMOU, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant, and Lieutenant Jacoblowski; Commander Mizell; Lieutenant Kontratowicz, Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Marcel Livaudais, Jr., Judge.

ON REHEARING

(Opinion February 26, 1997, 5th Cir., 1997, 107 F.3d 290)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:

In response to the government's petition for rehearing, the final two paragraphs of the original opinion are withdrawn and are replaced by the following; otherwise the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

We are not persuaded that the discretionary-function exception necessarily defeats Coumou's suit. We have noted that "[c]ourts have generally drawn a line between decisions at a planning level, or decisions that exercise policy judgment, and decisions at a[n] operational level, or decisions that are merely incident to carrying out a government policy." 22 Even if the government is immune from tort suits with respect to its policy decision to search the NORDIC in Haiti and then accede to the Haitian request to exercise Haitian jurisdiction, it still had a duty to exercise reasonable care in carrying out that policy. 23

The Supreme Court has clarified the definition of a "discretionary function" by explaining that it can include even a low-level operational decision so long as the decision "requires judgment as to which of a range of permissible courses is the wisest." 24 A government planner low in the organizational hierarchy can nevertheless exercise discretion on behalf of the government. The central question, then, is whether the government engaged in tortious conduct not "grounded in social, economic, [or] political policy." 25

According to Coumou, the government failed to communicate potentially exculpatory information from one LEDET to another and then failed to communicate that information to Haitian police and prosecutors. The United States has no policy interest in treating informants the same way it treats other suspected criminals. Its need for discretion in conducting foreign relations does not include a need to decide whether to inform foreign governments that there may be no basis for prosecuting a United States citizen because he provided the tip that led to the arrest. If Coumou's account of events in Port-au-Prince is accurate, the government was required to take reasonable care to see that Haitian officials learned of Coumou's cooperation. Its failure to transmit the information may have been the result of a breach of that duty.

We remand Coumou's suit for the district court to determine whether the government failed to convey information to Haitian authorities and whether any such failure breached its duty of reasonable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • McAllister Towing of Virginia, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 23 de abril de 2012
    ...at *8; Coumou v. United States, 107 F.3d 290, 295-96 (5th Cir. 1997), withdrawn and superseded in part on reh'g by Coumou v. United States, 114 F.3d 64 (5th Cir. 1997) ("The general maritime law of negligence recognizes a duty of reasonable care under existing circumstances.").7. A duty of ......
  • Irving v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 10 de setembro de 1998
    ...conduct is of the kind that Congress would have shielded. See id. at 335, 111 S.Ct. 1267 (Scalia, J., concurring); Coumou v. United States, 114 F.3d 64, 65 (5th Cir.1997) (recognizing some difference "between decisions at a planning level, or decisions that exercise policy judgment, and dec......
  • Thames Shipyard and Repair Co. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 26 de novembro de 2003
    ...the crew of a public vessel and not by the vessel itself. See Coumou v. United States, 107 F.3d 290, 294 n. 9 (5th Cir.), modified, 114 F.3d 64 (5th Cir.1997); Harrington v. United States, 748 F.Supp. 919, 929 6. The last factor (allocation of resources) comes into play especially because, ......
  • McAllister Towning of Virginia, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 3 de abril de 2012
    ...at *8; Coumou v. United States, 107 F.3d 290,295-96 (5th Cir. 1997), withdrawn and superseded in part on reh'g by Coumou v. United States, 114 F.3d 64 (5th Cir. 1997) ("The general maritime law of negligence recognizes a duty of reasonable care under existing circumstances.").7. A duty of c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT