Fowler v. United States, No. 10-1046 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Fowler appealed the district court's determination that the government was entitled to summary judgment on a tort action he filed against the US and an employee of the US Air Force. Mr. Fowler was injured when a car driven by Sean Garrick collided with Mr. Fowler and his motorcycle. Mr. Garrick was an active-duty member of the U.S. Air Force. Mr. Garrick was on break at the time of the collision. During breaks, the Air Force does not require employees to spend their time in specific ways. Typically when employees get a break, they go somewhere to relax. Mr. Fowler filed suit against Mr. Garrick and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Mr. Fowler contended that the government should be liable for the collision because it was "liable for the negligent acts of its employees committed in the scope and course of their employment." Under the FTCA, the Attorney General may certify that an employee is acting within the scope of his office or employment. If the Attorney General declines to make such a certification, the employee may petition the trial court to find and certify that the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. If such certification is granted, the United States is substituted as a defendant in place of the employee, and litigation proceeds under the FTCA. The Attorney General and the trial court declined to certify that Mr. Garrick acted under the scope of his employment while on his break. The government then moved to dismiss the claim. The trial court dismissed the government from the case. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Mr. Fowler argued that the trial court erred in denying the certification necessary for him to maintain his suit against the government. Upon consideration of the arguments, the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The Court concluded that summary judgment in favor of the government was improper in this case. The Court vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
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.