George Lutfi v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01114-AJT-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999093583].. [11-1966]

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 23

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1966

GEORGE LUTFI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-01114-AJT-IDD)

Argued:

March 21, 2013

Decided:

April 24, 2013

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Steven Michael Oster, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Joseph Edward Krill, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Neil H. MacBride,
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 23

PER CURIAM:
In

this

Federal

Tort

Claims

Act

(“FTCA”)

case,

Appellant George Lutfi (“Appellant Lutfi”) appeals the district
court’s

dismissal

of

his

claim

for

lack

of

subject

matter

Appellant

Lutfi

jurisdiction.
The
injured

his

Memorial

underlying
arm

while

Appellant

(“Memorial”)
Lutfi

dispute
visiting

in

alleges:

arose
the

United

Arlington,
(1)

the

after

States

Virginia.

district

Air
On

court

Force

appeal,

erroneously

granted the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and,
instead, the district court should have treated the motion as
one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; (2) the
district court erroneously applied Virginia’s recreational land
use

statute

establish

(“RLUS”),

gross

which

negligence;

required

and

(3)

in

Appellant
the

Lutfi

to

alternative,

the

district court erred in concluding that there were no genuine
issues of material fact on the issue of gross negligence.
We reject these arguments and hold instead: (1) the
district court’s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), though
erroneous,

was

harmless

error

inasmuch

as

Appellant

Lutfi’s

substantial rights weren’t affected; (2) the district court did
not err in applying the RLUS given that Appellant Lutfi was
sightseeing

while

he

was

visiting
2

the

Memorial;

and

(3)

the

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 3 of 23

district court did not err in concluding there were no genuine
issues of material fact on the issue of gross negligence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
I.
A.
On
several

of

approximately

Friday,

November

his

relatives

8:00

p.m.

17,

2006,

arrived

According

Appellant

at
to

the

Lutfi

and

Memorial

at

Appellant

Lutfi,

the

purpose of the visit to the Memorial was to “highlight American
values” for the benefit of a young relative who was visiting
from out of town.

See J.A. 1034-35. 1

Neither Appellant Lutfi

nor his relatives paid a fee to visit the Memorial or park in
the Memorial’s parking lot.
The group came in two separate cars and, upon arrival,
parked in a section of the parking lot reserved for Memorial
visitors.
in

the

According to Appellant Lutfi, several of the lights
parking

lot

were

not

functioning

that

evening.

Specifically, Appellant Lutfi alleges that the only functioning
lights were on the lower end of the parking lot, behind their
vehicles and in the opposite direction of the Memorial.

1

He also

Citations to the J.A. refer to the Joint Appendix filed by
the parties in this appeal.

3

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 4 of 23

alleges there were several light poles in the area surrounding
their

vehicles,

but

the

lights

on

those

poles

were

not

functioning.
Appellant Lutfi and his relatives visited the Memorial
for

approximately

vehicles.

twenty

minutes

before

returning

to

their

Appellant Lutfi alleges that, while walking through

the parking lot on his way back to the vehicles, he stepped on a
wire hoop that was hidden beneath a patch of leaves on the
ground.

According to Appellant Lutfi, the hoop encircled his

ankles, causing him to fall to the ground and fracture his arm.
B.
As a result of this injury, Appellant Lutfi brought
multiple

actions

defendants.

in

state

and

Specifically,

federal

on

November

court
17,

against
2008,

various

Appellant

Lutfi, proceeding pro se, filed an action in Arlington County
Circuit

Court

However,

on

against

July

27,

three
2010,

private

Appellant

federal
Lutfi

contractors.

filed

a

motion

seeking voluntary dismissal of that lawsuit, which the state
court granted.
On October 2, 2009, Appellant Lutfi, again proceeding
pro se, brought the present action against the United States in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.

In his initial compliant, Appellant Lutfi generally

alleged that the United States negligently failed to warn or
4

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

protect

Filed: 04/24/2013

visitors

against

the

Pg: 5 of 23

dangerous

conditions

that

were

allegedly present in the parking lot, namely the presence of
construction debris and the existence of inadequate lighting.
On

July

counsel,

26,

2010,

filed

an

and

amended

the

reincorporating
States

Appellant

Lutfi,

original

adding

(1)

this

complaint

time

(“Amended

allegations

claims

acting

against

against

through

Complaint”),
the

several

United
private

contractors, including those named in the original state court
action,

and

(2)

a

claim

that

the

United

States

negligently

failed to supervise those contractors. 2
On

July

26,

2010,

the

district

court

issued

its

initial scheduling order, which provided that discovery would
conclude
later

on

December

enlarged

this

10,

2010.

period

by

However,
two

months.

the

district
Thus,

court

Appellant

Lutfi’s discovery period expired on February 11, 2011, giving
him a total of seven months in which to complete discovery.
On October 8, 2010, the United States filed its first
motion to dismiss.

In that motion, the United States argued (1)

Appellant Lutfi had failed to establish that the United States
was liable under Virginia law and, therefore, the district court

2

The Amended Complaint’s claims against the independent
contractors were all dismissed in separate orders and are not
relevant here.

5

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

lacked

subject

matter

FTCA’s

independent

Pg: 6 of 23

jurisdiction

contractor

under

exception

the

FTCA; 3

insulated

(2)

the

the

United

States from liability because the United States had delegated
the construction and maintenance of the Memorial’s parking lot
to an independent contractor; and (3) the FTCA’s discretionary
function exception similarly insulated the United States from
liability because the decision to hire an independent contractor
was a discretionary function.

The district court denied this

motion on November 19, 2010, in order to give Appellant Lutfi a
“full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery.”
n.4.

J.A. 1036-37,

In a separate order also entered that day, the district

court enlarged the discovery period by two months.

See R. 62. 4

On February 14, 2011, following the conclusion of the
discovery period, the United States filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 5 alleging that Appellant Lutfi
had

engaged

in

“litigative

misconduct”

during

discovery

3

As discussed in more detail, infra, the FTCA vests
district courts with jurisdiction to hear tort claims asserted
against the United States only to the extent that “the United
States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in
accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission
occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
4

Citations to “R.” refer to district court ECF docket entry
numbers not included in the Joint Appendix.
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides, “[i]f the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against
it.”

6

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

sufficient

to

warrant

magistrate

judge

Pg: 7 of 23

involuntary

heard

argument

dismissal.

on

this

R.

motion

188.

and,

The

in

the

ensuing report and recommendation, recommended dismissal.

See

R. 286, at 21 (“Given Plaintiff’s past behavior in response to
the

Court’s

dismissal

of

orders
this

and
case

instructions,
with

this

prejudice

is

Court
the

finds

only

that

effective

sanction.”)
While
district
dismiss

the

Rule

court,

the

United

for

lack

of

41

motion

States

subject

was

filed

matter

alternative, for summary judgment.

pending
a

before

renewed

jurisdiction

the

motion

or,

in

to
the

The district court granted

the United States’ renewed motion to dismiss on April 22, 2011.
In so doing, the district court properly noted, under the FTCA,
federal

courts

only

possess

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

tort claims asserted against the United States to the extent
that the United States would have been liable as a private party
under the law of the state in which the tort occurred.

See J.A.

1033-34 (citing Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967
F.2d 954, 969 (4th Cir. 1992); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)).
In determining whether the United States would have
been liable to Appellant Lutfi under Virginia law, the district
court first concluded that the RLUS applied to Appellant Lutfi’s
claims.
freely

Under the RLUS, a landowner who makes its property
available

to

the

public
7

for

recreational

purposes,

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

including

Filed: 04/24/2013

“sightseeing,”

negligence

or

willful

has

or

Pg: 8 of 23

no

liability

malicious

failure

except
to

for

guard

“gross
or

warn

against a dangerous condition, use, or structure, or activity.”
Va. Code 29.1-509(B) & (D).
the

RLUS

receive

applicable
a

fee

in

Therefore, the district court found

because

return

(a)

for

the

United

Appellant

States

Lutfi’s

use

did

not

of

the

Memorial and (b) Appellant Lutfi was sightseeing when his injury
occurred.

Accordingly, the district court concluded Appellant

Lutfi must show that the United States was grossly negligent
under Virginia law in order to prevail.
The district court then concluded Appellant Lutfi had
failed to make such a showing.

In so holding, the district

court noted, “[u]nder Virginia law, ‘gross negligence is that
degree of negligence which shows an utter disregard of prudence
amounting
requires

to
‘a

complete

neglect

heedless

and

of

the

palpable

safety

of

violation

respecting the rights of others.’”

another’

of

and

legal

duty

J.A. 1035 (quoting Frazier

v. City of Norfolk, 234 Va. 388, 393 (1987)).

Applying this

definition to the facts at hand, the district court concluded
that,

even

resolving

all

disputed

facts

and

drawing

all

reasonable inferences in Appellant Lutfi’s favor, a reasonable
jury

could

not

conclude

that

negligent under Virginia law.

the

United

States

See J.A. 1035-36.

was

grossly

Accordingly,

the district court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss.
8

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 9 of 23

II.
“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).”

Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs.,

Inc., 658 F.3d 402, 408 (4th Cir. 2011).
Similarly,

we

review

summary judgment de novo.

the

district

court's

grant

of

Ray Commc’ns, Inc. v. Clear Channel

Commc’ns, Inc., 673 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2012).

Summary

judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

When evaluating a

motion for summary judgment, a court is required to view all
facts and reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
248 (1986).
establish

the

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

The moving party carries the initial burden to
absence

of

a

genuine

issue

of

material

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

fact.
If the

moving party meets this burden, the non-moving party must then
go beyond the pleadings and “set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Finally,

when

reviewing

the

Id. at 324.

judgment

of

a

district

court, we will “disregard all errors and defects that do not
affect any party’s substantial rights.”
also 28 U.S.C. § 2111.
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; see

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 10 of 23

III.
Pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the
United States is immune from private civil actions absent an
express waiver.

See Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 193-

94 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S.
584, 586 (1941)) (“Absent a statutory waiver, sovereign immunity
shields the United States from a civil tort suit.”)

Through the

FTCA, Congress expressly waived sovereign immunity for certain
tort

claims,

vesting

federal

district

courts

with

exclusive

jurisdiction over all civil actions brought against the United
States

“under

circumstances

where

the

United

States,

if

a

private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance
with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
28

U.S.C.

§

1346(b)(1).

Because

Appellant

Lutfi’s

alleged

injury occurred in Arlington, Virginia, Virginia law governs the
merits of this case.

Accordingly, the district court possessed

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter to the extent that
the United States, if a private person, would have been liable
to Appellant Lutfi under Virginia law.
A.
Appellant Lutfi first argues that the district court
erred

in

dismissing

his

claim

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction pursuant to rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

He bases this argument on our decision in
10

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 11 of 23

Kerns, wherein we reversed a district court’s dismissal of a
case

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction

and

held

that,

instead, the district court should have “assume[d] jurisdiction
and assess[ed] the merits of the claim” in order to give the
plaintiff the benefit of the procedural protections of a motion
for summary judgment.

Kerns, 585 F.3d at 195.

Ordinarily, a defendant may challenge the existence of
subject

matter

jurisdiction

in

one

of

two

ways:

(1)

by

contending that a complaint fails to allege facts upon which
subject matter jurisdiction can be based (a “facial challenge”)
or (2) by contending that the jurisdictional allegations made in
the complaint are not true (a “factual challenge”).

See Kerns,

585 F.3d. at 192-93 (citing Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219
(4th

Cir.

1982)).

In

a

facial

challenge,

the

plaintiff

is

afforded the same procedural protections as he would be accorded
when faced with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
pursuant

to

Procedure.

Rule

12(b)(6)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Namely, all alleged facts are taken as true and the

motion will be denied if the complaint alleges facts that, if
proven, would be sufficient to sustain jurisdiction.

See id.

In a factual challenge, a trial court “may then go beyond the
allegations
determine

of

if

allegations.”

the

there

complaint
are

facts

and
to

Id.
11

in

an

support

evidentiary
the

hearing

jurisdictional

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

This

Filed: 04/24/2013

legal

framework

Pg: 12 of 23

is

normally

effective

resolution of subject matter jurisdiction disputes.
cases

where

the

jurisdictional

facts

are

for

the

However, in
“inextricably

intertwined” with those central to the merits of the dispute,
this framework falls short.
cases,

“a

trial

court

Kerns, 585 F.3d at 193.

should

then

afford

the

In such

plaintiff

the

procedural safeguards — like discovery — that would apply were
the

plaintiff

facing

a

direct

attack

on

the

merits.”

Id.

Accordingly, “[a]s the Supreme Court has held with respect to
such

situations,

a

trial

court

should

dismiss

under

Rule

12(b)(1) only when the jurisdictional allegations are clearly
immaterial,

made

solely

for

the

purpose

of

obtaining

jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly unsubstantial and
frivolous.”

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

and

alterations

omitted).
Thus,

Appellant

Lutfi

contends

that,

because

the

jurisdictional and merits facts are inextricably intertwined in
this case, the district court erred in dismissing for lack of
subject

matter

jurisdiction

under

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

12(b)(1).

Instead, Appellant Lutfi argues that the district court should
have assumed jurisdiction and resolved this case on the merits.
We

agree.

There

is

no

dispute

that

the

jurisdictional

and

merits issues are “inextricably intertwined” in this case, as
the question of jurisdiction under the FTCA turns entirely on
12

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 13 of 23

the question of whether the United States could be liable to
Appellant

Lutfi

under

Virginia

law.

Thus,

under

Kerns,

the

district court should have assumed jurisdiction and decided this
case

on

a

motion

for

summary

judgment.

Accordingly,

the

district court’s dismissal of Appellant Lutfi’s claims for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction was improper.
However, as the United States correctly argues, this
error was harmless. 6

Under the harmless error doctrine, we “must

disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s
substantial rights.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2111 (“On the hearing of any appeal . . . the court shall give
judgment . . . without regard to errors or defects which do not
affect the substantial rights of the parties.”)

An error is

harmless if we can say “with fair assurance, after pondering all
that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the
whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the
error . . . .”

Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765

(1946); see also Taylor v. Virginia Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219
(4th

Cir.

1999)

(en

banc)

(formally

adopting

the

Kotteakos

harmless error standard for civil cases).

6

The United States also argues Appellant Lutfi waived this
procedural argument by failing to raise it below.
However,
because we conclude the district court’s error was harmless, we
need not determine whether this argument was, in fact, waived.

13

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 14 of 23

Here, we can say with fair assurance that, had the
district

court

assumed

jurisdiction

and

analyzed

the

United

States’ motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the court would have reached the same result.
Notably, Appellant Lutfi’s argument that the district
court erroneously dismissed this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
is based entirely on our decision in Kerns.

However, in Kerns,

the court’s primary concern was the fact that the plaintiff had
not

been

allowed

to

conduct

discovery

and

thus,

was

not

afforded “the procedural safeguards . . . that would apply were
the plaintiff facing a direct attack on the merits.”

Kerns,

585 F.3d 193.
In

contrast,

here,

months to conduct discovery.
the

original

scheduling

awarded thereafter.
accorded

the

Appellant

Lutfi

was

given

seven

This includes the five months from

order

and

the

additional

two

months

Moreover, Appellant Lutfi was, in fact,

procedural

safeguards

of

the

summary

judgment

standard, as the district court resolved all disputed factual
matters and drew all reasonable inferences in his favor.
e.g.,

J.A.

accepts

as

1034-35
true

(“For

these

purposes

of

this

characterizations

of

motion,
the

the

See,
Court

purpose

and

nature of plaintiff’s visit to the Memorial, but nevertheless
concludes that they do not take his visit outside the scope of
the

Recreational

Use

Statute.”);
14

J.A.

1035

(“Accepting

that

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

testimony

as

Filed: 04/24/2013

true,

there

is

Pg: 15 of 23

nothing

in

the

record

that

establishes how long that condition may have existed before the
accident

or

that

the

United

States

condition.”) (emphasis supplied).

was

on

notice

of

that

This conclusion is bolstered

by the additional facts that: (1) as noted above, the district
court initially denied the United States’ motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction in order to afford Appellant
Lutfi an opportunity to conduct discovery; and (2) the district
court’s final dismissal arose in the context of a motion to
dismiss

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction

or,

in

the

alternative, for summary judgment.
Accordingly, we can say with fair assurance that the
district court’s erroneous reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
did

not

effect

its

ultimate

conclusion

that

Appellant

Lutfi

could not establish that the United States was liable to him
under Virginia law.

Therefore, the district court’s error was

harmless.
B.
Appellant Lutfi next argues the district court erred
in applying the RLUS for two reasons.

First, Appellant Lutfi

contends that the RLUS only applies to those entities for whom
the existence of the RLUS’s reduced standard of care was the
primary motivation for opening their land to the public and,
therefore, the RLUS does not apply to the United States as the
15

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 16 of 23

United States was otherwise motivated to build the Memorial.
Second, Appellant Lutfi contends that the RLUS does not apply
because he was not sightseeing during his visit to the Memorial.
We reject both arguments.
1.
First,

Appellant

Lutfi

contends

that

the

RLUS

only

applies to those entities for whom the existence of the RLUS’s
reduced standard of care was the primary motivation for opening
their land to the public.

According to Appellant Lutfi, the

United States does not fit this description because, he asserts,
it

likely

would

have

opened

the

Memorial

to

the

public

regardless of whether it would enjoy the protection of the RLUS.
Thus, Appellant Lutfi concludes the RLUS does not apply here.
In support of this argument, Appellant Lutfi relies on
Piligian v. United States, 642 F. Supp. 193, 195 (D. Mass. 1986)
(“[T]he

landowner

whose

liability

the

legislature

sought

to

limit is the one for whom the existence of the RLUS provides the
primary

motivation

in

allowing

the

public

on

his

land.”)

However, this reliance is inapposite.
First, Piligian is distinguishable.
plaintiff

was

injured

outside the Pentagon.

while

sitting

on

a

In Piligian, the
shopping

concourse

Just prior to the injury, the plaintiff

had taken a free tour of the Pentagon.

As a result of the

injury, she filed suit against the United States under the FTCA.
16

Appeal: 11-1966

The

Doc: 132

United

Filed: 04/24/2013

States

argued

Pg: 17 of 23

that

the

RLUS

applied

because

plaintiff was sightseeing at the time of her injury.

the

However,

the Piligian court rejected this argument, concluding instead
that the RLUS did not apply because the United States had, in
fact, received a fee in exchange for the use of its property.
The Piligian court based this conclusion on the fact
that the injury occurred on a shopping concourse located just
outside the Pentagon, as opposed to the Pentagon grounds.

The

shops on this concourse paid royalties to the United States.
Accordingly,

the

Piligian

court

likened

the

concourse

to

a

shopping mall and, therefore, concluded that the RLUS did not
apply.

See Piligian, 642 F. Supp. at 195 (“[T]he concourse area

is not unlike any suburban shopping mall, where in addition to
the shops, there are areas for relaxing, listening to music, and
viewing temporary exhibits, or what have you.”)
Here,

Piligian

is

inapplicable

because

Appellant

Lutfi’s injury did not occur in a “commercial area” like the one
at

issue

in

Pilgian.

J.A.

1036.

Moreover,

even

assuming

Piliian is analogous, we decline to hold that the existence of
the

statute’s

limitation

of

liability

provision

must

be

a

landowner’s “primary motivation” for opening its land to the
public in order for the statute to apply.
nothing

in

the

statute

that

supports

such

There is simply
a

requirement.

Rather, the only two pre-requisites listed in the statute are
17

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 18 of 23

(1) the requirement that the landowner not receive a fee in
exchange for use of its property and (2) the requirement that
the property be used for a “recreational purpose.”

Because both

of these pre-requisites are met in the present case, the RLUS
applies.
2.
Appellant

Lutfi’s

second

argument

against

the

application of the RLUS is that he was not “sightseeing” at the
Memorial

but,

instead,

he

went

to

the

Memorial

to

impart

American values on his visiting young relative, which he argues
is not “sightseeing.”
We first note that neither the statute nor Virginia
courts have defined the term “sightseeing” as it is used in the
RLUS.

Thus,

we

must

give

the

term

its

ordinary

meaning.

Johnson v. Zimmer, 686 F.3d 224, 243 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hen
terms

used

in

a

statute

are

undefined,

we

give

them

their

ordinary meaning[.]”); see also Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct.
2464, 2471 (2010).

In ascertaining a term’s ordinary meaning,

both this court and the Supreme Court have relied on the term’s
dictionary definition.

See, e.g., United States v. Gonzales,

520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997); see also N. Carolina ex rel. Cooper v.
TVA, 515 F.3d 344, 351 (4th Cir. 2008).
the

district

Webster’s

court

Third

New

and

adopt

the

International
18

Accordingly, we join

relevant

definitions

Dictionary.

from

Specifically,

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 19 of 23

that dictionary defines “to sightsee” as “to go about seeing
sights of interest” and further defines a “sight” as “a thing
regarded as worth seeing.”

J.A. 1035 (citing Webster’s Third

New International Dictionary at 2114-15).
We

also

agree

with

the

district

court’s

conclusion

that Appellant Lutfi’s visit to the Memorial fits within this
definition.

Simply put, Appellant Lutfi and his relatives were

going to “see” the Memorial, a “thing regarded as worth seeing.”
J.A. 1035.

Notwithstanding his laudable objective, Appellant

Lutfi’s trip to the Memorial fits well within the parameters of
the term “sightseeing”: he went to the Memorial to see a sight
of interest.

Thus, the RLUS still governs.
C.

Because we conclude the RLUS applies, Appellant Lutfi
must establish that the United States was grossly negligent in
order

to

prove

his

claim.

In

this

regard,

Appellant

Lutfi

argues the district court erred in concluding the evidence was
insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the
United States was grossly negligent.
Under

Virginia

law,

gross

Again, we disagree.
negligence

is

defined

as

“that degree of negligence which shows an utter disregard of
prudence amounting to complete neglect of the safety of another.
It is a heedless and palpable violation of legal duty respecting
the rights of others.

Gross negligence amounts to the absence
19

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 20 of 23

of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.”

Frazier

v. City of Norfolk, 362 S.E.2d 688, 691 (Va. 1987) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).

Though not dispositive,

“[d]eliberate conduct is important evidence on the question of
gross negligence.”

Id. at 801.

Before turning to the facts in this case, we first
analyze Virginia’s leading cases applying this standard in the
context of the RLUS.

First, in Frazier, a plaintiff was injured

when he fell from an orchestra pit at a concert hall in Norfolk,
Virginia.

At the time of the injury, there was a gap between

the rear of the orchestra pit and the front of the stage.

There

were no railings or other barriers to protect against this kind
of

an

incident,

amounted

to

a

and

the

violation

absence

of

of

code.

city

those

protective

Moreover,

devices

two

years

before the incident in question, a child had fallen from the
same orchestra pit even when protective barriers had been in
place.
Despite this evidence, the Supreme Court of Virginia
concluded

the

negligence.

city’s

actions

constituted,

at

most,

ordinary

Frazier, 362 S.E.2d at 691 (“Such acts of omission

do not rise to that degree of egregious conduct which can be
classified as a heedless, palpable violation of rights showing
an utter disregard of prudence.”); see also City of Lynchburg v.
Brown, 613 S.E.2d 407 (Va. 2005) (concluding that the failure to
20

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 21 of 23

correct an open and obvious hazard in a set of bleachers was not
gross negligence).
The

Virginia

Supreme

Court

reached

the

opposite

conclusion in Chapman v. City of Virginia Beach, 475 S.E.2d 798
(1996).

In Chapman, a child died after becoming entrapped in a

swinging gate made of metal bars.

The evidence in that case

demonstrated the gate had been broken for several months prior
to the incident.

The evidence also showed that city employees

had been notified at least three times of this defect, but that
the city had made a deliberate decision not to correct it until
the peak tourist season had concluded.

On this evidence, the

Supreme Court concluded, “reasonable persons could differ upon
whether the cumulative effect of these circumstances constitutes
a form of recklessness or a total disregard of all precautions,
an absence of diligence, or lack of even slight care[,]” and
reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
the city.

Chapman, 475 S.E.2d at 801.
Appellant

resemblance
district

to

court

Lutfi

Chapman
should

negligence to a jury.

argues
than

have

that

this

case

Frazier

and,

accordingly,

submitted

the

bears

question

of

more
the
gross

In making this argument, Appellant Lutfi

cites the following facts: although the United States contracted
with

several

independent

parties

for

the

construction

and

maintenance of the Memorial, all parties agree the United States
21

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 22 of 23

retained exclusive control over the lighting in the Memorial’s
parking lot.

See J.A. 716.

According to the declaration of

Steven Carter, the building manager at the Memorial, he would
have

been

immediately

notified

Memorial parking lot was low.

if

the

See id.

illumination

in

the

Similarly, Mr. Carter

asserts that, had he been so notified, he would have placed a
service call to have the defective lighting repaired.

Once such

a call was placed, Mr. Carter avers that it would have been
documented in a computerized maintenance management system known
as

“Maximo.”

According

to

Mr.

Carter,

the

Maximo

system

contains a record of a service call to replace some of the
lights in the Memorial parking lot on October 27, 2006.
Carter

further

testifies,

however,

that

those

records

Mr.
also

indicate that the work was completed later that same day.
Appellant Lutfi disputes this testimony, asserting (a)
the lights were out on the evening of his accident and (b) other
evidence

in

the

Maximo

records

undermines

Mr.

Carter’s

conclusion that the lights were repaired on October 27, 2006,
namely that the relevant work order was not “closed” until March
21, 2007.

Resolving all disputes in Appellant Lutfi’s favor, we

will assume, for purposes of this appeal, that the lights were
out on October 27, 2006 and that they had not been repaired by
the time of Appellant Lutfi’s visit on November 17, 2006.

22

Appeal: 11-1966

Doc: 132

Filed: 04/24/2013

Pg: 23 of 23

On these facts, it is clear that Appellant Lutfi’s
reliance on Chapman to support his claim that the United States
was grossly negligent is inapposite; rather, this case is more
akin to Frazier.

Here, unlike Chapman, there is no evidence

that the United States made a deliberate decision to ignore the
allegedly dangerous conditions that were present in the parking
lot,

nor

is

there

any

evidence

that

consciously disregarded these conditions.

the

United

States

At most, the evidence

establishes that the United States was aware that the lights
were out in the parking lot for approximately two weeks before
the

incident

unsuccessful

and
steps

that
to

the

United

correct

the

States

issue.

had

taken

some

Though

this

might

amount to ordinary negligence, it does not amount to the sort of
“egregious conduct” or “utter disregard of prudence” necessary
to establish gross negligence under Virginia law.

Accordingly,

the district court did not err in concluding that a reasonable
jury

could

not

find

that

the

United

States

was

liable

to

Appellant Lutfi.
IV.
For these reasons, the judgment of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.

23