Hedglin v. Esch
25 Neb. Ct. App. 306
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 25, 2016, Hedglin filed a tort-notice with the City of Hastings under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), alleging personal injury from actions of police officer Jerry Esch while acting in scope of employment.
- Hedglin filed suit in Adams County District Court on June 9, 2016, asserting defamation and false-light invasion of privacy (and referenced intentional conduct). The City had not issued final disposition of the PSTCA claim before suit was filed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6); the district court received and considered exhibits and granted the motion.
- The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment (because it considered matters outside the pleadings); Hedglin did not object or present contrary evidence at the hearing.
- The district court held the PSTCA applied to Hedglin’s tort claims and that she had prematurely withdrawn her administrative claim by filing suit before 6 months elapsed and before the governing body made a final disposition, so her suit failed as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PSTCA applies to Hedglin’s claims (defamation / false light) | Hedglin: her PSTCA notice was for negligence and does not cover intentional torts alleged in the complaint, so PSTCA does not govern | Defendants: PSTCA governs all tort claims for personal injury by employees acting in scope, including intentional torts; notice requirement applies to all tort claims | Held: PSTCA applies; personal injury includes injury to feelings or reputation and notice requirement covers intentional torts |
| Whether filing suit before the political subdivision’s final disposition (i.e., within 6 months) was permissible | Hedglin: (implicitly) suit was timely despite different theory; she did not concede the timing bar | Defendants: §13-906 requires either final disposition or withdrawal after 6 months before suit; filing suit less than 6 months is premature and defeats condition precedent | Held: Hedglin filed suit before 6 months and before final disposition, thereby failing a statutory condition precedent; suit barred |
| Whether the district court erred by converting the motion to dismiss to summary judgment without notice | Hedglin: did not assign this as error on appeal; in any event, lacked specific objection at hearing | Defendants: conversion appropriate because court considered exhibits and plaintiff had opportunity to present evidence | Held: Treated as summary judgment; Hedglin had opportunity and did not object or proffer opposing evidence; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Funk v. Lincoln-Lancaster Cty. Crime Stoppers, 294 Neb. 715 (statutory issues under PSTCA reviewed de novo)
- Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271 (PSTCA is exclusive remedy and notice/time conditions are conditions precedent)
- Brothers v. Kimball County Hospital, 289 Neb. 879 (motion to dismiss treated as summary judgment when court considers matters outside pleadings)
- Corona de Camargo v. Schon, 278 Neb. 1045 (purpose of notice of conversion is to prevent prejudice; lack of prejudice may allow conversion)
- Ichtertz v. Orthopaedic Specialists of Neb., 273 Neb. 466 (plaintiff given opportunity to present evidence after exhibits received; appellate review declines to reverse on that procedural ground)
- Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (intentional torts recognized within PSTCA context)
- Keller v. Tavarone, 265 Neb. 236 (primary purpose of PSTCA notice is prompt investigation and defense by municipal authorities)
- SFI Ltd. Partnership v. Carroll, 288 Neb. 698 (summary judgment standard explained)