Fales v. County of Stanton
297 Neb. 41
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Around 12:45 a.m. on Feb. 9, 2014, minors Dillon Fales (passenger) and Bryant Irish (driver) left a party after drinking; Irish drove a pickup and took back roads after hearing officers were coming.
- Stanton County Deputy Petersen observed the pickup, followed it, and activated emergency lights for a traffic violation; the occupants accelerated.
- While fleeing, someone in the pickup (later shown to be Fales) tossed a 30-pack box and cans of beer out of the vehicle; Petersen reported seeing beer being thrown and considered it destruction of evidence.
- The pickup subsequently crashed; Fales suffered severe injuries and sued the County under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-911 (claim for innocent third parties injured during vehicular pursuits) and alleged negligence under § 60-6,114.
- The district court found Fales was not an "innocent third party" because his act of throwing beer, observed during the pursuit, made him a person sought to be apprehended; the court entered judgment for the County. Fales appealed; the County cross-appealed constitutional challenges to § 13-911 but conceded those need not be addressed if Fales is not an innocent third party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fales qualified as an "innocent third party" under § 13-911 | Fales argued he remained an innocent third party because the pursuit began for a traffic violation and passengers are typically not targets | County argued that by throwing beer (destruction of evidence) during the pursuit, Fales became a person sought to be apprehended and thus not innocent | Court held Fales lost innocent-third-party status when he tossed beer observed by the deputy, so § 13-911 does not provide recovery |
| Whether evidence supports that law enforcement sought to apprehend Fales specifically | Fales argued deputy never saw who threw beer and did not intend to apprehend him | County pointed to radio traffic and deputy testimony that beer was being tossed and that destruction of evidence broadened the deputy’s focus to all occupants | Court found factual findings reasonable and not clearly erroneous; deputy’s perception and radio reports support that occupants were sought |
| Whether a passenger can lose innocent status during an ongoing pursuit | Fales argued mere commission of a crime during pursuit doesn’t automatically make passenger a target (relying on Werner) | County argued a passenger may become a target if they take actions (e.g., jettison evidence) making them a subject of apprehension | Court held a passenger can lose innocent status during a pursuit if they commit acts that make them persons sought to be apprehended |
| Whether the court must address County’s constitutional attack on § 13-911 | Fales wanted resolution; County cross-appealed constitutional claims | County conceded those issues were unnecessary if Fales was not an innocent third party | Court declined to decide the constitutional question as unnecessary and affirmed on the innocent-third-party issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899, 824 N.W.2d 38 (2012) (defines innocent third party and affirms passenger may remain innocent where officer did not know of passenger’s unlawful conduct during pursuit)
- Henery v. City of Omaha, 263 Neb. 700, 641 N.W.2d 644 (2002) (interprets Legislature’s focus on third party actions in assessing innocent-third-party status)
- Jura v. City of Omaha, 15 Neb. App. 390, 727 N.W.2d 735 (2007) (passenger in stolen vehicle was a person sought to be apprehended; occupants may be targets when vehicle is stolen)
- 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)