No. 22-2126 ___________________________

Andrew Hutchinson, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of R.H, a Minor Child; Jessica Hutchinson, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of R.H., a minor child

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

United States of America

Defendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: January 19, 2023 Filed: June 29, 2023 ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ STRAS, Circuit Judge.

Major Andrew Hutchinson’s son suffered serious injuries when a soccer goal tipped over at the Little Rock Air Force Base. Although he sued the Air Force for negligently failing to secure the goal to the ground and warn of the potential danger, the district court1 concluded that the Federal Tort Claims Act stood in the way. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674. We affirm.

I.

Major Hutchinson lived with his family in on-base “military housing.” Located nearby was Warfit Field, an athletic facility that hosted “fitness[-]improvement programs for airmen.” It served as “a popular amenity” for military personnel and their families “when it was not otherwise in use by the Air Force.”

In a tragic turn of events, Major Hutchinson’s three-year-old son suffered a serious injury during a soccer game on Warfit Field. While “playing goalie,” another child had placed “his hands on the net,” which caused the entire, unanchored soccer goal to fall over. The three-year-old, who was near it at the time, suffered a fractured skull that required hospitalization and multiple surgeries.

When the Air Force refused to compensate Major Hutchinson and his wife for their son’s injuries, the couple sued the United States for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674. The complaint alleged that the Air Force had failed to maintain the goal “in a reasonably safe condition” and warn users about its instability. It also described the goal as posing an especially serious risk to young children, “who were likely to be attracted to [it].” See Bader v. Lawson, 898 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Ark. 1995) (describing the attractive-nuisance doctrine).

The district court, for its part, granted the Air Force’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). To bring a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Hutchinsons had to show that “the United

1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- States, if a private person, would be liable” under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). They could not, the district court reasoned, because of Arkansas’s recreational-use statute, which provides added protection to landowners who allow others to use their land “for recreational purposes.” Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-305. We review this decision de novo. See Herden v. United States, 726 F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir. 2013) (en banc).

II.

The jurisdictional rule in play is sovereign immunity, which “shields the [f]ederal [g]overnment and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). One exception arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act “‘for certain torts committed by federal employees’ acting within the scope of their employment.” Brownback v. King, 141 S. Ct. 740, 746 (20