Fales v. County of Stanton
297 Neb. 41
| Neb. | 2017Background
- At ~12:45 a.m. on Feb. 9, 2014, two minors, Irish (driver) and Fales (passenger), left a party after drinking and took back roads when they learned law enforcement was responding.
- Stanton County Deputy Petersen followed Irish’s pickup after observing a turn-signal violation and activated emergency lights to initiate a stop; the driver accelerated instead of stopping.
- During the flight, Fales tossed a 30-pack box of beer (and cans) out the window; Petersen observed beer on the road and radioed that beer was being thrown, treating it as destruction of evidence.
- The pickup later lost control on a curve, struck a culvert, and Fales suffered severe injuries and paralysis.
- Fales sued the County under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-911 claiming he was an “innocent third party” injured by a vehicular pursuit; the district court found Fales lost innocent-third-party status when he threw the beer and entered judgment for the County.
- The County’s cross-claims challenged § 13-911’s constitutionality, but the court and parties agreed appellate resolution of liability mooted the need to reach the constitutional issue.
Issues
| Issue | Fales' Argument | County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fales was an "innocent third party" under § 13-911 | Fales argued he remained an innocent third party because pursuit began for a traffic violation and he was not the initial target | County argued Fales lost innocent-third-party status when he tossed beer (a crime) and thus became a person sought to be apprehended | Court held Fales lost that status when he threw beer during the pursuit; County not liable under § 13-911 |
| Whether a passenger who commits a crime during a pursuit remains an innocent third party | Fales argued committing a crime during pursuit does not automatically make a passenger a target (citing Werner) | County argued that active destruction of evidence broadened the officer’s focus to all occupants | Court held a passenger can lose innocent-third-party status if their conduct during pursuit makes them a person sought to be apprehended |
| Sufficiency of district court’s factual findings | Fales argued factual findings were clearly wrong and relied on officer not seeing who threw beer | County argued the officer observed beer being thrown and radio traffic supported that perception; court’s inferences reasonable | Court affirmed district court: factual findings not clearly erroneous and inferences permissible |
| Need to reach County’s constitutional challenge to § 13-911 | Fales argued liability should be decided; County pressed constitutional challenge on cross-appeal | County conceded appellate decision for County would render constitutional question unnecessary | Court declined to reach constitutional issue as unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899, 824 N.W.2d 38 (passenger may be innocent third party where officer did not know of passenger’s criminal conduct during pursuit)
- Henery v. City of Omaha, 263 Neb. 700, 641 N.W.2d 644 (legislative intent: statute focuses on third party’s actions in relation to driver’s flight)
- Jura v. City of Omaha, 15 Neb. App. 390, 727 N.W.2d 735 (passenger in stolen vehicle was a person sought to be apprehended; occupants may be targets when facts reasonably support it)