Utter v. United States
3:23-cv-00441
D. Nev.May 22, 2025Background
- Alicia Utter sued the United States under the FTCA for negligence after a collision with a USPS mail truck driven by Amor Cabral outside Utter's residence in Reno, Nevada.
- The incident occurred on August 9, 2021, as Utter was backing her car (parked nose-in to the curb, partially blocking the mailbox) out of her parents’ cul-de-sac home.
- No law enforcement was called and both vehicles were drivable after the low-speed accident; the USPS pursued damages against Utter for repairs.
- Competing factual narratives emerged: Utter claimed Cabral T-boned her, while Cabral claimed Utter backed into his vehicle.
- The court found Cabral credible and Utter not credible, supported by photographic evidence and contradictions in Utter's testimony.
- After a liability-only bench trial, the court ruled for the United States, finding Utter failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Cabral was negligent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fault for Collision | Cabral negligently T-boned Utter’s car | Utter negligently backed into the USPS truck | Utter backed into Cabral; no fault for USPS |
| Plaintiff's Negligence | Denied significant fault, blaming Cabral | Utter was solely at fault for backing into vehicle | Utter 100% at fault |
| Photographic & Physical Evidence | Shows she was T-boned and pushed backward | Shows Utter scraped backward into stationary truck | Evidence favors Cabral’s version |
| Credibility of Witnesses | Plaintiff credible, Cabral inconsistent | Cabral credible, Utter’s testimony inconsistent | Cabral credible, Utter not |
Key Cases Cited
- Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden of proof for negligence in FTCA cases under Nevada law is preponderance of the evidence)
- Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 221 P.3d 1276 (Nev. 2009) (elements of negligence in Nevada: duty, breach, causation, and damages)
- Johns v. McAteer, 457 P.2d 212 (Nev. 1969) (drivers must obey traffic laws and act as an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances)
- Cafe Moda v. Palma, 272 P.3d 137 (Nev. 2012) (Nevada’s comparative negligence system bars recovery if plaintiff is more at fault)