David Furry v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5162
7th Cir.2013Background
- FTCA case in which Furry and Nye allege USPS substitute driver Williams negligently caused a collision; plaintiffs were in a station wagon and did not see Williams’s truck prior to impact.
- Williams’s USPS truck was parked at an angle on Grove Ave; it pulled out during heavy rain, allegedly causing the collision; Williams fled the scene and later resigned.
- Police found no evidence of a crash at the scene; plaintiffs offered no eyewitnesses or expert accident reconstruction testimony; Williams testified by deposition with several inconsistencies.
- District court credited plaintiffs’ evidence that the station wagon impacted the postal vehicle but found no basis to conclude Williams breached the duty of ordinary care due to lack of first-hand evidence of who initiated the contact; court treated breach as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviews for clear error; breach and proximate cause remain questions of fact absent eyewitness testimony and require consideration of circumstances, vehicle condition, impact angle, speed, and weather; court affirmed judgment for the United States.
- Plaintiff’s counsel argued breach by Williams; defendant argued alternative causes and lack of causation; the court found no clear error in the district court’s breach determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of duty proven by preponderance of the evidence | Furry and Nye contend Williams initiated contact. | Alternate causes possible; no conclusive proof Williams breached. | Not clearly erroneous; breach remains a factual question. |
| Credibility of Williams and its impact on breach | Williams’s credibility undermines his account. | District court credibility determinations are authoritative. | District court’s credibility assessment accorded deference; breach still not proven. |
| Flight from the scene as evidence of negligence | Flight supports inference of negligence. | Alternative explanations (route return, firing risk) exist. | Flight not conclusive; other explanations render inference inappropriate. |
| Consolidation of breach and proximate cause as legal questions | Breach and proximate cause should be treated as law given unique cause. | Remains factual questions. | Breach/proximate cause treated as factual questions; not purely de novo law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. United States, 27 F.3d 245 (7th Cir. 1994) (FTCA sovereign immunity and choice of law)
- Moran v. Gatz, 62 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. 1945) (duty and standard of care for drivers)
- First Springfield Bank & Trust v. Galman, 720 N.E.2d 1068 (Ill. 1999) (elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation))
- Williams v. Univ. of Chi. Hosps., 688 N.E.2d 130 (Ill. 1997) (discretion in evaluating credibility on appeal)
- NLRB v. Luois A. Weiss Mem’l Hosp., 172 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 1999) (absence of evidence does not favor the proponent)