safety from alternative actions. Theriot v. United States, Nos. 96-1532, 96-1954, slip op. at 7 (W.D.La. Aug. 19, 1997). This finding is fully supported by Shilling’s testimony and is not disputed by appellants. Thus, it is clear that the government’s decision whether to place a warning sign or marker at the sill’s location was a discretionary decision that required judgment or choice and one that was grounded in public policy considerations. Accord Drake Towing Co., Inc. v. Meisner Marine Const. Co., 765 F.2d 1060, 1064 (11th Cir.1985) (stating that “the initial decision to place aids to navigation such as the temporary buoys in this case is within the Coast Guard’s discretion”); see also Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 69, 76 S.Ct. 122, 126-27, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955) (<HOLDING>); Wiggins v. United States, 799 F.2d 962,
holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that decision to operate lighthouse is discretionary decision while failure to maintain lighthouse is not within discretionary function exception holding that the united states could be liable under the ftca for the negligent operation of a lighthouse despite the fact that the initial decision to undertake the lighthouse service was discretionary holding that decision to operate a lighthouse service as an aid to navigation is an exercise of discretion