Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
13-3633•John Vincent Mackovich v. United States of America
13-3633Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.07.2015
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[Unpublished]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 an1
The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
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-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.