Fales v. County of Stanton
297 Neb. 41
Neb.2017Background
- Around 12:45 a.m., two minors, Irish (driver) and Fales (passenger), left a party after consuming beer; Stanton County Deputy Petersen began following their pickup after observing driving behavior.
- Petersen activated emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop for a turn-signal violation and possible speeding; the pickup accelerated instead of stopping.
- During the flight, Fales threw a 30‑pack box of beer (and cans) out of the passenger window; Petersen observed beer on the road and radioed that beer was being thrown.
- The pickup crashed on a curve at very high speed; Fales suffered catastrophic injuries.
- Fales sued the County under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13‑911 as an “innocent third party” injured by a vehicular pursuit; he also asserted negligence under § 60‑6,114. The district court found Fales was not an innocent third party and entered judgment for the County.
- The County cross‑appealed a separate constitutional challenge to § 13‑911; the Supreme Court declined to address the cross‑appeal after affirming the district court’s ruling that Fales was not an innocent third party.
Issues
| Issue | Fales' Argument | County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fales was an "innocent third party" under § 13‑911 | Fales argued throwing the beer did not make him a target of the pursuit; at pursuit start passengers are typically not sought | County argued that tossing beer (destruction of evidence) observed by the deputy made Fales a person sought to be apprehended, disqualifying him | Court held Fales lost innocent‑third‑party status when he threw beer observed during the pursuit, so § 13‑911 does not apply |
| Whether a vehicular pursuit existed and proximately caused injury | Fales maintained the pursuit/causation elements supported recovery if he were an innocent third party | County contended even if pursuit occurred, Fales was not entitled to § 13‑911 relief because he became a person sought to be apprehended | Court did not reach these elements because Fales failed the innocent‑third‑party requirement |
| Negligence claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60‑6,114 | Fales argued County was negligent in its pursuit, creating liability | County argued no liability given § 13‑911 inapplicable and sovereign immunity defenses | District court dismissed negligence claim; Supreme Court affirmed by resolving innocent‑third‑party issue (no recovery under § 13‑911) |
| County's cross‑appeal challenging constitutionality of § 13‑911 | County argued the statute was enacted unconstitutionally and conflicted with negligence standards | Fales opposed striking the statute | Court declined to address the constitutional challenge as unnecessary after affirming on the innocent‑third‑party issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899, 824 N.W.2d 38 (distinguishing facts where officer did not observe a law violation by a passenger during pursuit)
- Henery v. City of Omaha, 263 Neb. 700, 641 N.W.2d 644 (legislative intent regarding scope of “innocent third party” under § 13‑911)
- Jura v. City of Omaha, 15 Neb. App. 390, 727 N.W.2d 735 (passenger in stolen vehicle was properly deemed a person sought to be apprehended)
- Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry’s Legacy, 293 Neb. 32, 875 N.W.2d 421 (appellate courts need not address unnecessary ancillary issues)