Michael Travis Hoyt v. United States of America et al
Filing
60
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Percy Anderson. Having considered the testimony of the witnesses, the materials submitted by the parties, and after reviewing the evidence, Court granted theGovernment's motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. There was no evidence offered to show that Florey's failure to turn his head caused or contributed to the accident, or that the accident w ould not have occurred if Florey had turned his head to look. Florey neither caused nor contributed to the accident. Hoyt's act of traveling between lanes occupied by other vehicles at a speed exceeding that of surrounding traffic is the sole cause of the accident. Because plaintiff Progressive stipulated to recover only the value of Hoyt's motorcycle based on the percentage of liability attributed to Florey, Progressive can recover nothing. (See document for details) (kpa)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A court trial was held on August 26, 2008. At the close of Michael Hoyt's ("Hoyt") case, the United States of America ("Government") moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, which the Court construed as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) motion for judgment on partial findings. Having considered the testimony of the witnesses, the materials submitted by the parties, and after reviewing the evidence, the Court granted the Government's motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On April 27, 2000, at about 6:30 p.m., Hoyt, who was operating a year 1991 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MICHAEL TRAVIS HOYT, and PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, CV 073966 PA (AGRx) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Harley-Davidson motorcycle insured by plaintiff Progressive Insurance Co. ("Progressive"),
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
was involved in a traffic collision with Sergeant Gregory Florey ("Florey"), who was operating a government-owned, year 2000 Dodge Stratus four-door sedan. 2. At the time of the accident, Florey was acting within the course and scope of
his employment with the Government. 3. Hoyt and Florey were traveling in the northbound lanes of freeway "SR 170" at
the time of the accident. 4. Florey, in preparing to change lanes, looked in his review mirror and side
mirror, signaled, looked in his side mirror again and, seeing that it was safe to do so, began to change lanes. Florey did not turn his head to check for vehicles before changing lanes. 5. Hoyt, who was at the time operating a motorcycle and traveling between lanes
occupied by other vehicles, or "splitting lanes," was traveling at a speed exceeding that of surrounding traffic, and could not stop in sufficient time to avoid hitting the rear bumper of Florey's car. 6. Florey's car sustained damage from the collision located on the rear bumper,
approximately midway between the driver-side edge of the bumper and the mid-point of the bumper. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. To have a cognizable claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2671, et seq., the claim must arise from the negligent or wrongful act of a government employee acting within the scope of his employment under circumstances where the United States, if it were a private individual, would be liable under the law of the state where the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. California law is applicable because the accident occurred in California. Id. 2. In California, actionable negligence requires a legal duty to use care, breach of
that duty, and causation of injury. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., 1 Cal. 3d 586, 594, 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 (1970). A Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed damages were caused by the negligent act or omission of an employee of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. -2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3.
Richard C. Rinker ("Rinker"), Hoyt's Accident Reconstruction Expert, testified
that Florey was responsible for the accident. Rinker's testimony is not credible because it contradicts Hoyt's testimony. Rinker testified that the damage to Hoyt's motorcycle is consistent with the right side of the motorcycle striking the left side of the car. However, Hoyt testified that the front-right part of his motorcycle struck the rear driver's side of Florey's bumper. 4. There was no evidence offered to show that Florey's failure to turn his head
caused or contributed to the accident, or that the accident would not have occurred if Florey had turned his head to look. Florey neither caused nor contributed to the accident. 5. Hoyt's act of traveling between lanes occupied by other vehicles at a speed
exceeding that of surrounding traffic is the sole cause of the accident. 6. Because plaintiff Progressive stipulated to recover only the value of Hoyt's
motorcycle based on the percentage of liability attributed to Florey, Progressive can recover nothing. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2008
_________________________________ Percy Anderson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
