John Mackovich v. United States , 608 F. App'x 441 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  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    [Unpublished]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
    1
    Court following a bench trial in this Federal Tort Claims Act suit arising out of an
    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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-3475

Citation Numbers: 608 F. App'x 441

Filed Date: 7/13/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023