Joshua M. v. State, 5 N.W.3d 454

Three siblings were fostered by Miles and Carol Ruch from 1996–2004 and later suffered further abuse after reunification; Miles was criminally charged and later sued for intentional assault and battery.
In 2015 the siblings sued Miles (intentional assault/battery) and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) for negligent placement, screening, supervision, and failure to remove them from dangerous placements.
At bench trial the court awarded $2.9 million against Miles but found insufficient evidence of DHHS negligence and entered judgment for DHHS; DHHS had also moved for a directed verdict asserting sovereign immunity under the STCA exemption for “any claim arising out of assault [or] battery.”
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court took the case to resolve a split in its precedent (notably Koepf v. County of York v. Moser v. State) about whether negligent-failure-to-protect claims fall within the assault/battery exemption.
The Supreme Court held that the siblings’ negligence claims were inextricably linked to the physical and sexual assaults, overruled Koepf to the extent it conflicted with Moser, concluded the STCA exemption barred the claims against DHHS, vacated the judgment as to DHHS with directions to dismiss, and affirmed the judgment against Miles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether negligence claims against DHHS are barred by STCA exemption for “any claim arising out of assault or battery”	Claims are negligence in placement/supervision that occurred before assaults and thus are independent of the assaults	Claims are inseparable from the assaults; exemption broadly bars any claim arising out of assault or battery	Held: Claims arise out of the assaults and are barred by the exemption; sovereign immunity applies
Whether Koepf line (negligent placement claims outside exemption) remains controlling precedent	Koepf permits negligent-failure-to-protect recovery and should govern	Moser and its progeny require strict construction of exemptions and bar such claims	Held: Koepf is overruled insofar as it conflicts with Moser; Moser/Johnson line governs
Whether plaintiffs alleged and proved separate nonassault emotional/abuse claims distinct from assaults	Plaintiffs (and dissent) contend emotional/mental-abuse allegations are distinct and survive the exemption	DHHS and majority say the complaint and trial proof tied injuries to physical/sexual assaults; no distinct nonassault claim was pled or proved	Held: No separate, distinct nonassault claim was pled or proved on this record; court declined remand for such claims

Koepf v. County of York, 198 Neb. 67, 251 N.W.2d 866 (1977) (earlier rule allowing negligent placement/supervision claims outside assault/battery exemption)
Johnson v. State, 270 Neb. 316, 700 N.W.2d 620 (2005) (held that framing a complaint as negligent failure to prevent does not avoid assault/battery exemption)
McKenna v. Julian, 277 Neb. 522, 763 N.W.2d 384 (2009) (applied strict construction, finding claim arose from assault)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374, 803 N.W.2d 508 (2011) (held negligence claims inextricably linked to battery and barred)
Rutledge v. City of Kimball, 304 Neb. 593, 935 N.W.2d 746 (2019) (applied broad reading of assault exemption)
Moser v. State, 307 Neb. 18, 948 N.W.2d 194 (2020) (reaffirmed strict construction and held negligent-failure-to-protect claims can be barred by assault exemption)
Edwards v. Douglas County, 308 Neb. 259, 953 N.W.2d 744 (2021) (endorsed Moser framework; broad application of exemption)
Williams v. State, 310 Neb. 588, 967 N.W.2d 677 (2021) (applied exemption to inmate-inmate stabbing claims)
Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522, 973 N.W.2d 666 (2022) (applied gravamen test; exemption bars claims that are not independent of assault)