Mary Ann Bathe v. United States of America

Background

The surviving immediate family of Douglas Bathe sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and California law for negligence, wrongful death, and a survival action. The case arose from a June 16, 2017 collision at Fort Hunter Liggett. Specialist Devin Hicks was driving a Humvee with Sergeant Patrick S. Wahrer as passenger when the Humvee collided with a John Deere M-Gator driven by Mr. Bathe, who was employed by XOTech. Mr. Bathe died after the accident.

The United States moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a disputed issue. It argued that Hicks was not negligent, that Mr. Bathe was negligent, and that XOTech was negligent. The parties also filed motions challenging expert testimony under the evidence rules governing expert opinions, commonly called Daubert motions.

Summary-judgment rulings

The court denied the United States’ motion for summary judgment as to whether Hicks tried to pass Mr. Bathe at an “intersection.” The parties disputed whether the entrance to the Equipment Concentration Site Storage Facility was a “highway” under the California Vehicle Code. That issue mattered because, if the entrance qualified as a highway, Hicks’s passing maneuver occurred at an intersection and created a rebuttable presumption of negligence.

The court also denied summary judgment as to whether Hicks’s decision to pass was reasonable. A witness testified that Wahrer said he had told Hicks, “no, don’t do it,” before Hicks attempted to pass. The court ruled that this testimony could be considered under the hearsay exception for statements made during the stress of a startling event and that it created a genuine factual dispute about Hicks’s conduct.

The court therefore denied the United States’ motion for summary judgment as to whether Hicks was negligent. That issue remains for determination at trial rather than being resolved as a matter of law.

As to Mr. Bathe, the court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment on whether he failed to look and signal before turning left. The court found that the evidence on those points was undisputed and that the plaintiffs’ general assertion that the soldiers were biased did not create a factual dispute.

The court denied summary judgment as to whether Mr. Bathe was wearing a seatbelt. Testimony that he customarily wore one conflicted with medical records showing no seatbelt mark and evidence that he was ejected from the vehicle. That dispute must be resolved by the factfinder.

The court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment as to XOTech’s negligence. The plaintiffs did not dispute that XOTech was negligent. The opinion described a Department of Labor citation stating that XOTech allowed an employee to operate an off-road utility vehicle on installation roadways without using a seatbelt. XOTech paid almost all of the resulting fine and later banned contractors from driving Gators.

Expert-evidence motions

The court denied without prejudice both parties’ Daubert motions. The motions challenged expert opinions concerning the biomechanics of Mr. Bathe’s injuries, the California Vehicle Code, and whether Mr. Bathe could have detected the approaching Humvee. The court stated that the challenged opinions did not alter its summary-judgment rulings and that the factual disputes could be resolved without relying on some of the challenged testimony.

Disposition and issues for trial

The court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion as to Mr. Bathe’s failure to look and signal before turning left and as to XOTech’s negligence. It denied the motion as to whether Hicks passed at an intersection, whether his decision to pass was reasonable, and whether Mr. Bathe wore a seatbelt.

The court identified five issues for trial: whether Hicks passed at an intersection, whether his decision to pass was reasonable, whether Mr. Bathe wore a seatbelt, how fault should be divided among the government, Mr. Bathe, and XOTech, and the amount of damages. The court also denied without prejudice the parties’ Daubert motions.