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) claiming personal injury, mental anguish, and humiliation from actions of police officer Jerry Esch.
- On June 9, 2016 (less than 6 months later), Hedglin filed a district-court complaint alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy against Esch and the City.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6); the district court received exhibits and ruled for defendants. The motion is treated as one for summary judgment because matters outside the pleadings were considered.
- Defendants argued Hedglin failed to comply with PSTCA notice/time requirements (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-905 and § 13-906) and so the suit was premature.
- The district court granted the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the PSTCA applied to Hedglin’s tort claims (including intentional torts affecting reputation) and she prematurely withdrew her claim by filing suit before 6 months elapsed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSTCA covers defamation/false light claims against a municipal employee | PSTCA notice was for negligence; intentional torts (defamation/false light) fall outside PSTCA notice requirement | PSTCA is the exclusive vehicle for tort claims against political subdivisions and covers personal-injury claims (including injury to reputation), whether negligent or intentional | PSTCA applies; notice requirement covers these claims |
| Whether filing suit before 6 months (withdrawal) satisfied § 13-906 | Filing suit before 6 months was permissible; claim was sufficiently presented | § 13-906 requires waiting 6 months (or final disposition) before suing; withdrawing claim earlier fails condition precedent | Hedglin withdrew claim prematurely; failure to satisfy § 13-906 bars suit |
| Whether conversion of motion to dismiss into summary judgment without formal notice was reversible error | Hedglin did not explicitly argue conversion error on appeal; she had opportunity to respond and did not object below | Defendants presented exhibits; district court considered them; facts relevant to PSTCA timing undisputed | Not reversible: Hedglin had notice/opportunity; issue was legal and facts undisputed, so treating motion as summary judgment was appropriate |
| Whether defendants needed to establish immunity or plead insufficiency of complaint on merits | Hedglin contended her pleadings stated claims for defamation, false light, conspiracy | Defendants argued dismissal based on failure to meet PSTCA procedural prerequisites, not on immunity or merits | Court affirmed dismissal on procedural ground; defendants did not need to prove immunity or merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Funk v. Lincoln-Lancaster Cty. Crime Stoppers, 294 Neb. 715 (appellate review standard for PSTCA cases)
- Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271 (PSTCA is exclusive remedy and conditions precedent under § 13-906)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (treating a § 6-1112(b)(6) motion as summary judgment when outside evidence is considered)
- Corona de Camargo v. Schon, 278 Neb. 1045 (notice requirement for conversion is to allow presentation of facts relevant to summary judgment issues)
- Ichtertz v. Orthopaedic Specialists of Neb., 273 Neb. 466 (procedural conversion acceptable where plaintiff had opportunity to respond)
- Gallion v. O’Connor, 242 Neb. 259 (definition of personal injury under PSTCA includes injury to reputation)
- Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (recognition that PSTCA contemplates intentional torts)
- Keller v. Tavarone, 265 Neb. 236 (purpose of § 13-905 to afford prompt notice so municipality can investigate)
- SFI Ltd. Partnership v. Carroll, 288 Neb. 698 (summary-judgment standard on appeal)