Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01699-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1364 Auto Negligence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALEB E. BELCHER; and CLB, by 

and through his guardian ad 

litem CALEB E. BELCHER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 

OF LAW

This case concerns an unfortunate accident in which 

Plaintiff CLB (“CLB”), a young boy who was four years old at the 

time of the accident, caused himself to come into contact with a 

patrol vehicle driven by Jennifer Linn, a law enforcement patrol 

officer for the United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service (“Officer Linn”). CLB sues for the injuries he sustained 

as a result of the collision, and CLB’s father, Plaintiff Caleb 

E. Belcher (“Caleb Belcher”), sues based on his claim that he 

witnessed CLB’s accident and thereby also sustained injuries. 

The accident occurred on a road within the El Dorado 

National Forest in an area known as the Big Hill Lookout, which 

is located inside the State of California. The United States is 

the defendant in this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act 

and is liable to the same extent as a private party would be 

liable “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or 

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Therefore, California 

law governs the claims.

Each Plaintiff alleges a negligence claim against the 

United States, premised on the assertion that Officer Linn 

breached the duty of care she owed CLB. Specifically, Plaintiffs 

contend Officer Linn failed to exercise the degree of care she 

should have used to prevent CLB from receiving the injuries he 

received when he collided with the patrol vehicle Officer Linn 

drove. Plaintiffs argue under California law “[a] greater degree 

of care is generally owed to children because of their lack of 

capacity to appreciate risks and avoid danger.” McDaniel v. 

Sunset Manor Co., 220 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7 (1990); see also Judicial 

Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2015 ed.) No. 412 

(“An adult must anticipate the ordinary behavior of children. An 

adult must be more careful when dealing with children than with 

other adults.”). The California Supreme Court discussed 

negligence in Flowers v. Torrance Mem’l Hosp. Med. Ctr., 8 Cal. 

4th 992, 997-98 (1994) (internal quotation marks, citations, 

footnote, and alteration in original omitted), as follows: 

Negligence is conduct which falls below 

the standard established by law for the 

protection of others against unreasonable 

risk of harm. Thus, as a general proposition 

one is required to exercise the care that a 

person of ordinary prudence would exercise 

under the circumstances. Because application 

of this principle is inherently situational, 

the amount of care deemed reasonable in any 

particular case will vary, while at the same 

time the standard of conduct itself remains 

constant, i.e., due care commensurate with 

the risk posed by the conduct taking into 

consideration all relevant circumstances. 

There are no degrees of care, as a matter of 

law; there are only different amounts of 

care, as a matter of fact. . . .

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

With respect to professionals, their 

specialized education and training do not 

serve to impose an increased duty of care but 

rather are considered additional 

“circumstances” relevant to an overall 

assessment of what constitutes “ordinary 

prudence” in a particular situation. Thus, 

the standard for professionals is articulated 

in terms of exercising “the knowledge, skill 

and care ordinarily possessed and employed by 

members of the profession in good 

standing . . . . 

The following findings of fact and conclusions of law 

are made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, in light of 

the testimony and documentary evidence presented at trial.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On January 15, 2011, Caleb Belcher, accompanied by 

his then four year old son CLB, and others, visited the Big Hill 

Lookout area to play in the snow. 

2. The Lomba family accompanied Caleb Belcher and CLB 

in a Recreational Vehicle (“RV”) to the area where the Big Hill 

Lookout is located at the top of Ice House Road. Two members of 

the group followed in a Jeep.

3. Big Hill Lookout Tower is surrounded by a one-way 

asphalt, round-a-bout roadway, with an open area in the middle 

that was covered with snow on January 15, 2011.

4. At the time Plaintiffs arrived, the weather was 

clear and sunny, and visibility was good.

5. Upon arriving, the group parked the RV off of the 

right side of the road, and the Jeep followed behind.

6. A video camera on Big Hill Lookout Tower was 

positioned in a manner that looked down onto the accident scene 

towards Ice House Road from above, and recorded the accident.

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

7. Following arrival at the destination, Emily Lomba 

(a then nineteen-year-old woman) took a then five-year-old girl 

and CLB out of the RV to play in the snow.

8. Emily Lomba and the two children crossed the 

round-a-bout road and began playing in the snow covered open 

area.

9. Caleb Belcher remained in the RV, putting on his 

snow boots.

10. Emily Lomba and the children threw snowballs 

across the road, back towards the RV at Craig DeHerrera, a family 

friend.

11. On the subject date, Officer Linn was on patrol in 

a Forest Service white Ford Expedition, and approached the area 

of Big Hill Lookout.

12. Officer Linn was patrolling the area in accordance 

with her patrol functions, testifying that the Big Hill Lookout 

Tower had frequently been broken into.

13. As Officer Linn drove up Ice House Road towards 

the Big Hill Lookout Tower round-a-bout, someone was parking a 

Jeep near the RV.

14. As the Jeep was being parked, it blocked the entry 

point of the round-a-bout, and Officer Linn’s vehicle came to a 

virtual stop before entering the round-a-bout.

15. The entry from Ice House Road to the round-a-bout 

is up a relatively steep incline.

16. As the Jeep moved out of the roadway, Officer Linn 

drove into the round-a-bout.

17. As Officer Linn entered the area, she observed a 

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

group of people on her left, and a gentleman (later determined to 

be named Craig DeHerrera) on her right. The group on the left 

consisted of Emily Lomba, CLB, and another child, all of whom she 

observed playing in the snow and throwing snowballs. Craig 

DeHerrera was on her right.

18. During Officer Linn’s approach, Emily Lomba, CLB, 

and the other minor child were out of the vehicle travel portion 

of the road, and were positioned on the left hand side of the 

direction she traveled, either out of the roadway entirely or on 

the outer edge of the asphalt roadway where it abutted the 

beginning of the snow berm.

19. During Officer Linn’s approach, Emily Lomba, CLB, 

and the other minor child were within arm’s-length of each other, 

playing in the snow, and Officer Linn had no reason to suspect

that Emily Lomba would not keep the children a safe distance from 

the portion of the road used for vehicle travel or that CLB would 

suddenly move into the road and collide with the left front 

portion of the white Ford Expedition Officer Linn drove. 

20. During Officer Linn’s approach, the parties did 

not throw snowballs across the road, and Officer Linn did not 

observe them throwing snowballs across the road before she 

approached.

21. Officer Linn drove slowly through the area at 

approximately 6.5 miles per hour, passing between Craig DeHerrera 

on the right side of the vehicle she drove, and Emily Lomba and 

the two minor children on the left side of that vehicle.

22. During Officer Linn’s approach, she had no reason 

to suspect that CLB or any other person was about to move quickly 

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

into the roadway.

23. As Officer Linn proceeded to pass when CLB had his 

back to her vehicle and was within arms-reach of Emily Lomba.

24. Officer Linn then noticed Craig DeHerrera (on the 

right side of the road) engage his right arm in a downward 

motion. She saw something in his right hand. She made these 

observations before the impact with CLB. Officer Linn explained 

that it is within the scope of her patrol law enforcement duties 

to be attentive to people in the forest that get rid of 

contraband when they see law enforcement officers, and that arm 

movements toward the ground could pose a safety concern. 

25. Officer Linn looked toward Craig DeHerrera for 

approximately one second to determine why he was moving his arm 

toward the ground. After looking towards Craig DeHerrera, Officer 

Linn determined that he was placing a container of Rockstar 

beverage on the ground. Officer Linn was then driving on the 

right side of the road, away from where the children and Emily 

Lomba were located on the left side of the road. 

26. At the same approximate time that Officer Linn 

looked away from Craig DeHerrera, CLB quickly, and without 

warning, darted into the roadway.

27. CLB ran into the driver’s side of Officer Linn’s 

patrol vehicle, contacting it near the front quarter panel.

Officer Linn did not see CLB before he contacted her vehicle. CLB 

moved quickly into the vehicle’s left front, where he collided 

with it, following which he fell to the ground, and the vehicle 

rolled over one of his legs. 

28. Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert, Rajeev 

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Kelkar, Ph.D. explained that it took CLB only 1.0-1.2 seconds to 

strike Officer Linn’s vehicle from the time he began unexpectedly 

moving quickly into the roadway.

29. CLB was slightly taller than the tire on Officer 

Linn’s vehicle and shorter than its hood.

30. Officer Linn never saw CLB move towards her 

vehicle.

31. Officer Linn’s first awareness of a problem was 

when she heard a woman scream, “Oh my God, [CLB].”

32. After Officer Linn heard this shout, she pressed 

her brakes, and stopped her vehicle. When she came to a stop, 

part of her right front tire was slightly off the right side of 

the road. 

33. CLB was in the roadway at the time of the initial 

contact between him and Officer Linn’s vehicle.

34. Officer Linn’s vehicle remained in the roadway at 

all times before, during, and after CLB made contact with the 

vehicle.

35. Under the circumstances, Officer Linn could not 

reasonably have stopped her vehicle before CLB collided with it.

36. Dr. Kelkar opined that since Officer Linn could 

not be expected to have reasonably anticipated CLB’s sudden 

movement into the vehicle travel portion of the road, this was a 

virtually unavoidable accident for Officer Linn.

37. Dr. Kelkar testified: 

Officer Linn was traveling at speeds of 

approximately six and a half miles per hour 

or less in the four seconds leading up to 

initial contact between CLB and [Officer 

Linn’s vehicle] . . . . CLB was on the east 

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

side of the roadway [the driver’s side of 

Officer Linn’s vehicle] for several seconds 

as Ms. Linn approached the entrance to the 

Lookout Tower loop. CLB was moving across Big 

Hill Road for approximately 1.1 seconds 

before initial contact was made. Look away 

time, perception reaction time and the break 

to stop times are in excess of the time that 

CLB was moving across the roadway, making 

this a virtually unavoidable accident for Ms. 

Linn.

38. Dr. Kelkar explained he engaged in “what we call 

the time speed and distance analysis” to determine travel time, 

as follows: 

We take the video footage and we reconstruct 

using photogrammetry the location of the 

vehicle at various points in time. The video 

footage has a time clock on the upper left 

corner and that allows us to tell us at this 

particular point in time without 

reconstruction of the photogrammetry where is 

the vehicle, and so once you place the 

vehicle on the scale scene diagram, we can 

then measure off distances and we know the 

distance covered in a certain amount of time, 

and we can calculate the average speed across 

that timing tool. 

39. Dr. Kelkar also testified that the tire tracks of 

Officer Linn’s vehicle “indicat[e] that . . . [she] [wa]s moving 

towards the right side or the west side of the roadway 

[(passenger side)] as she[] [was] approaching the loop.”

40. In addition, down the road from where the accident 

occurred, but in view of the RV and the playing children, Cammie 

Hewitt and her family were parked and observing the RV, the 

children, and the activity in the round-a-bout. Cammie Hewitt 

testified during the trial that her family was about half a block 

from where the RV was parked, and she saw adults cross the street 

with a child. She also testified that “we had made a comment 

about how the child wasn’t being watched,” “and then before we 

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

knew it [the child] was in the corner of the vehicle” that 

Officer Linn drove. Cammie Hewitt also told California Highway 

Patrol Sergeant Christopher Davis “it wasn’t the ranger’s fault,” 

“something outside the driver’s control caused the accident.”

41. The California Highway Patrol also investigated 

CLB’s accident and its conclusions indicate that it was 

reasonable for Officer Linn’s attention to be drawn to Craig 

DeHerrera in light of his downward arm movement, and that Officer 

Linn did not see CLB when he moved further into the roadway and 

collided with the vehicle Officer Linn drove.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Officer Linn exercised reasonable care in driving 

through the area where CLB was injured. Specifically, she 

reasonably assumed that Emily Lomba would ensure that CLB would 

not place himself in danger by entering the portion of the 

roadway used by a traveling motorist, and there was no indication 

that Officer Linn should have realized that CLB would place 

himself in danger by swiftly moving into that roadway at the 

approximate time when Officer Linn reasonably discharged a law 

enforcement patrol observation function for the reasonable period 

of time she was visibly investigating why Craig DeHerrera was 

moving his right arm towards the ground.

JUDGMENT

For the stated reasons, Judgment shall be entered in 

favor of the United States.

Dated: June 11, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Case 2:13-cv-01699-GEB-KJN Document 51 Filed 06/12/15 Page 10 of 10