Lonnie Two Eagle, Sr. v. United States, No. 22-1683 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff sued the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after an employee of a hospital operated by the Indian Health Service (IHS) struck Plaintiff with his vehicle. Plaintiff claimed that the hospital employee was negligent by driving despite his prior seizures; and the employee’s supervisor was negligent for not preventing the employee from driving; and the employee’s doctor was negligent for releasing the employee to drive
The district court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because United States’ sovereign immunity applied to Plaintiff’s claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that because it is Plaintiff’s burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, he must adduce evidence showing that Rosebud Health had sufficient control or supervision over the employee’s doctor’s work. He has not done so. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim.
Court Description: [Buescher, Author, with Benton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. The government employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when he struck plaintiff with his auto; under South Dakota's "coming and going" rule for determining an employer's liability for accidents involving a commuting employee, the government had no control over the employee as he drove back to work from his lunch break; the premises exception to the rule does not apply as the accident did not occur on the government's property; with respect to whether the employee's supervisor knew about the employee's seizures and should have ensured he was not driving before being cleared by his doctor, the claim is precluded by the discretionary function exception to government liability; the doctor who gave permission for the employee to drive was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the federal government and FTCA liability did not attach to his actions. [ January 10, 2023 ]
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.