Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01746/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN B. HENDRICKSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1746-LAB (NLS)

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE;

AND

ORDER RESETTING TIME AT

WHICH TRIAL WILL COMMENCE

[DOCKET NUMBERS 54, 55, 56,

57, 58]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

The parties filed five motions in limine, and the Court held a hearing at which it

delivered its rulings from the bench. This order memorializes those rulings. It should be

noted that because this is case will be tried to the Court without a jury, there is less need to

limit in advance what will be presented at trial, and the Court can reconsider or modify any

rulings as appropriate.

Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Thomas Jennings regarding training

Agent Moore should have received, or any higher standard of care to which Border Patrol

agents should be held, is GRANTED. Jennings is not precluded from testifying as to other

matters, provided his testimony is relevant.

Defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of a higher standard of care to which Border

Patrol agents should purportedly be held is also GRANTED. Under the Federal Tort Claims

Act, the U.S. is liable only to the same extent that a private person would be. See Filice v.

- 1 - 11cv1746

Case 3:11-cv-01746-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 2
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

United States 271 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir. 1959) (explaining that under the FTCA, the U.S.

"shall be liable to the same extent, and no more, than would a private person" under like

circumstances).

Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony by Manual Duran regarding Agent Moore’s

possible violation of Border Patrol safety regulations is DENIED. While such a violation is

not negligence per se, violation of an employer’s safety regulation may serve as evidence

of negligence. See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Bank of America, 220 Cal.App.2d 545, 561

(1963); Southern Pac. Co. v. Haight, 126 F.2d 900, 909 (9th Cir. 1942) (citing Gett v. Pacific

Gas & Electric Co., 192 Cal. 621, 625 (1923)) (violation of a company's operating rule, while

not negligence per se, can properly be considered in determining whether a defendant's

employee was negligent).

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony

of Roman Beck. Plaintiff’s counsel will be permitted to voir dire Beck to determine whether

his testimony satisfies the Daubert standard, and Plaintiff may renew his objection at that

time.

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Rusty Rea is DENIED as to evidence

regarding the condition of Plaintiff’s tires, and the graphic illustrations Rea intends to use,

and GRANTED as to all other issues.

On February 3, 2014, the Court ordered that trial would commence on May 13, 2014

at 10:00 a.m. As discussed at the hearing on the motions in limine, the trial will instead

commence on that day at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1746

Case 3:11-cv-01746-LAB-NLS Document 69 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 2