an inmate sued the government for serious injuries he sustained while exercising on a lateral pull-down machine when the “cable con-' necting, the steel pull-down ' bar to the weights snapped, bringing the bar down onto his shoulders and neck with approximately 270 pounds of force.” Id. at 107. The court held that “[ujnder various fair readings of the complaint,” the prisoner’s claim “involves negligence unrelated to any plausible policy objectives.” Id. at 111. The court explained that a government inspector’s laziness in failing to inspect the machine or “to notify the appropriate authorities upon noticing the damaged cable, are examples of negligence ... that do not involve ‘considerations of public policy.’ ” Id. (quoting Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323, 111 S.Ct. 12 98 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The decisions of SSgt. Raventos challenged
holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding that decision to establish recreational swimming area was discretionary but failure to replace buoy secured by an anchor that injured a swimmer was not within discretionary function exception recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver holding that asserted failure to warn of danger in offshore swimming area does not implicate any social economic or political policy judgments with which the discretionary function exception properly is concerned holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision 