C.B.S. v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-1453
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1453 ___________________________

C.B.S., a minor by his mother and guardian, Stephanie Hope Smith; Stephanie Hope Smith, individually

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: February 4, 2025 Filed: February 24, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Appellants appeal the district court’s1 judgment after a bench trial in their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action arising out of a collision between their vehicle and a United States Postal Service truck. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Howard v. United States, 964 F.3d 712, 716 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating that after a bench trial, the court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error; applying the law of the state where the alleged acts occurred in an FTCA action). We conclude that the court did not clearly err in its allocation of fault, see Sandhofer v. Abbott- Northwestern Hosp., 283 N.W.2d 362, 368 (Minn. 1979) (explaining that apportionment of negligence is the function of the jury and that a verdict will not be set aside unless it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence”), or in its damage award, see Molin v. Tyson Truck Line, Inc., 239 N.W.2d 461, 462 (Minn. 1976) (per curiam) (stating that the amount of damages is a fact question). We further conclude that the court did not plainly err in admitting the medical expert’s testimony. See Manuel v. MDOW Ins. Co., 791 F.3d 838, 845 (8th Cir. 2015) (applying plain- error review to expert testimony admitted without objection before or during trial). Finally, we conclude that the appellants’ various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil case is a malpractice suit against the attorney). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

_____________________________

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-