John Mackovich v. United States, No. 14-3475 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. The government's judgment in this case involving a slip-and-fall accident at the Federal Medical Center is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3475 ___________________________ John Vincent Mackovich lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: July 7, 2015 Filed: July 13, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. John Vincent Mackovich appeals from the judgment entered by the District Court following a bench trial in this Federal Tort Claims Act suit arising out of an 1 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. alleged slip-and-fall accident at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. Following careful review, we conclude that the court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are not clearly erroneous and that the court correctly stated and applied Missouri premises-liability law. See Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732, 737 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing the standard for reviewing a judgment entered after a bench trial and noting that factual findings are reviewed for clear error while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo); Moore v. Novak, 146 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting the Supreme Court’s explanation of why a trial judge’s evaluation of witness credibility can virtually never amount to clear error); Stanley v. City of Independence, 995 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Mo. 1999) (setting forth the elements of a negligence claim under Missouri law); Huxoll v. McAlister’s Body & Frame, Inc., 129 S.W.3d 33, 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (per curiam) (recognizing that the possessor of land has no duty to protect invitees from open and obvious dangers “unless the landowner should anticipate the harm despite the obviousness of the risk”). 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.
