Clark v. Sargent Irr. Dist.
311 Neb. 123
| Neb. | 2022Background
- SID employee Doug Kriss mixed and sprayed an off-label herbicide mixture on July 3, 2019; the Clarks allege drift damaged their corn crop.
- The Clarks submitted a written PSTCA claim to SID on June 29, 2020; SID’s board denied settlement on July 7, 2020.
- The Clarks sued SID and Kriss for negligence (vicarious and failure to train/supervise) on September 1, 2020, alleging off-label mixing and overapplication.
- SID moved to dismiss/for summary judgment asserting (1) PSTCA discretionary-function exemption and (2) failure to meet PSTCA presuit/final-disposition requirements; the district court denied the motion, focusing on discretionary-function applicability.
- SID appealed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1)(d); the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed (a) whether § 25-1902(1)(d) confers jurisdiction over the two assigned errors, and (b) whether the discretionary-function exemption barred the Clarks’ claims.
- The Court held it had jurisdiction to review the discretionary-function issue but not the presuit/final-disposition procedural challenge; it affirmed denial of summary judgment as to discretionary function and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-1902(1)(d) authorizes interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment based on failure to comply with PSTCA presuit procedures | Clarks: presuit procedures are administrative, not jurisdictional; such motions are not based on sovereign immunity | SID: denial of summary judgment on presuit grounds implicates sovereign immunity and is appealable under § 25-1902(1)(d) | Court: motions asserting failure to comply with presuit procedures are not "based on the assertion of sovereign immunity" under § 25-1902(1)(d); no jurisdiction to review that assignment of error |
| Whether § 25-1902(1)(d) authorizes interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment based on statutory exemptions that preserve sovereign immunity | Clarks: statutory exemptions (sovereign immunity) are jurisdictional and appealable when asserted | SID: denial based on discretionary-function exemption is appealable under § 25-1902(1)(d) as an assertion of sovereign immunity | Court: motions asserting that a claim falls within PSTCA statutory exemptions (e.g., discretionary-function) are "based on the assertion of sovereign immunity" and may be appealed under § 25-1902(1)(d) |
| Whether the PSTCA discretionary-function exemption bars the Clarks’ negligence claim | Clarks: Nebraska Pesticide Act (§ 2-2643.01) mandates pesticide use according to labeling and forbids careless/negligent operation, so Kriss had no discretion | SID: Kriss had discretion in herbicide use and application, so discretionary-function exemption shields SID | Court: § 2-2643.01 prescribes mandatory conduct for licensed applicators; Kriss had no choice regarding label compliance, so discretionary-function exemption does not apply; summary judgment properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercer v. North Central Serv., 308 Neb. 224, 953 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 2021) (explains two-step discretionary-function inquiry under PSTCA)
- Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916, 958 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2021) (construing § 25-1902(1)(d) appellate jurisdiction provisions)
- Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 305 Neb. 609, 941 N.W.2d 497 (Neb. 2020) (earlier decision interpreting § 25-1902 amendments)
- E.D. v. Bellevue Pub. Sch. Dist., 299 Neb. 621, 909 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2018) (prompted legislative amendment creating § 25-1902(1)(d))
- Saylor v. State, 306 Neb. 147, 944 N.W.2d 726 (Neb. 2020) (presuit PSTCA procedures are administrative conditions precedent, not jurisdictional)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1988) (framework for determining whether conduct involves choice for discretionary-function analysis)
- Jasa v. Douglas County, 244 Neb. 944, 510 N.W.2d 281 (Neb. 1994) (PSTCA discretionary-function precedent)
- Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12, 875 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 2016) (discusses immunity and discretionary-function limits under state tort claims)