on this basis. In Gaubert, the Court explained that “[a] discretionary act is one that involves choice or judgment; there is nothing in that description that refers exclusively to policy-making or planning functions.” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S.Ct. 1267. Rather, decisions that take place in the administration of a pqlicy decision are also protected — even if an abuse of discretion — so long as they are judgments based on policy considerations. Id. at 326, 111 S.Ct. 1267. On the second aspect of the plaintiffs’ negligence claims, involving a failure to warn, the decision whether to warn soldiers and their families of the potential effects of inoculations and pesticides also amounted to a judgment call. The decision whether to warn about the effe 0, 798-800 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Finally, on the third aspect, which alleged a
holding that a government agencys failure to warn about submerged alligators has no policy basis holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim