Philip Jean-Baptiste v. United States, No. 04-4193 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. Only claim plaintiff administratively exhausted failed to state a claim under Arkansas negligence law, and the district court did not err in granting the government summary judgment on plaintiff's FTCA suit alleging negligent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-4193 ___________ Philip Jean-Baptiste, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: March 22, 2006 Filed: June 27, 2006 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Philip Jean-Baptiste (Baptiste) appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging negligent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We affirm, because we conclude that the only claim that Baptiste administratively exhausted failed to state a claim under Arkansas negligence law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (under FTCA, United States shall be liable for torts in same manner and to same extent as private individual under 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. like circumstances); Washington v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 183 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir. 1999) (under § 2674, under like circumstances means that there must be private analogue in state law to government s conduct); Maneth v. Tucker, 34 S.W.3d 755, 758 (Ark. App. 2000) (threshold question that must be answered in negligence case is what duty, if any, defendant owed plaintiff); cf. Barnes v. United States, 448 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court s dismissal of FTCA claim for negligent inspection and negligent advice, because Missouri law did not impose duty to inspect or to advise; while federal agency was required to follow federal standards, there were no similar state standards imposing any duty). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
