Fales v. County of Stanton
297 Neb. 41
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Around 12:45 a.m., two minor occupants (Irish driving, Fales passenger) left a party after consuming beer and took back roads when they saw law enforcement nearby.
- Stanton County Deputy Petersen observed the pickup, followed it, and activated emergency lights intending a traffic stop for a signaling/speed issue.
- While being followed, the pickup accelerated; Fales threw a 30-pack box of beer (and cans were observed being tossed) from the vehicle; Petersen reported on radio that beer was being thrown.
- Petersen considered the jettisoning of beer to be destruction of evidence and expanded his focus to include occupants who might be concealing evidence, though he did not know which occupant tossed the beer.
- The pickup subsequently crashed at a curve; Fales suffered severe injuries and sued the County under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-911 as an "innocent third party," and also alleged negligence under § 60-6,114; the County cross-claimed challenging the statute's constitutionality.
- The district court found Fales was not an innocent third party because his act of throwing beer during the pursuit made him a person sought to be apprehended; the court entered judgment for the County; Fales appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fales was an "innocent third party" under § 13-911 | Fales argued he was an innocent third party because the pursuit began as a traffic stop and officers intended only to apprehend the driver | County argued that by throwing beer (destruction of evidence) Fales became a person sought to be apprehended and thus not an innocent third party | Court held Fales was not an innocent third party because tossing beer during the pursuit, observed by the deputy, made him a person sought to be apprehended |
| Whether a passenger can lose innocent-third-party status during a pursuit | Fales argued that a passenger's later criminal act during pursuit does not automatically make them a target | County argued a passenger who takes actions (e.g., discarding evidence) during a pursuit may become a target of apprehension | Court held a passenger may lose innocent-third-party status if they take actions during the pursuit that make them a person sought to be apprehended |
| Sufficiency of trial court's factual findings | Fales argued the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous (e.g., no proof he threw the beer) | County relied on deputy testimony and radio logs showing beer being thrown and the deputy’s broadened focus | Court held factual findings were not clearly erroneous and must be viewed in favor of prevailing party (County) |
| Need to decide County’s constitutional challenge to § 13-911 | Fales wanted statute applied to him; County cross-appealed claiming § 13-911 unconstitutional | County conceded that if judgment for County on liability is affirmed, constitutional issue need not be reached | Court declined to reach the constitutional challenge as unnecessary after affirming the judgment for County |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899, 824 N.W.2d 38 (2012) (defines "innocent third party" analysis and distinguishes when officer did not know passenger committed separate wrongdoing)
- Henery v. City of Omaha, 263 Neb. 700, 641 N.W.2d 644 (2002) (legislative intent regarding third-party actions and flight)
- Jura v. City of Omaha, 15 Neb. App. 390, 727 N.W.2d 735 (2007) (passenger in a stolen vehicle held to be a person sought to be apprehended)
- Williams v. City of Omaha, 291 Neb. 403, 865 N.W.2d 779 (2015) (standards for appellate review in Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act cases)