Lambert v. Lincoln Public Schools, 306 Neb. 192

On April 4, 2016, after Sheridan Elementary School students were dismissed, a child (Olivia) and her mother (Jena) were bitten on the school playground by a dog brought there by the Griffins. Both plaintiffs required medical treatment; Olivia required surgery.
The Lamberts sued the Griffins (who defaulted and were later held liable) and Lincoln Public Schools (LPS), alleging LPS negligently failed to enforce Sheridan’s “no dogs” policy and failed to supervise the playground after school.
LPS’s district-wide regulation allowed dogs on school grounds if leashed during the schoolday; Sheridan maintained a stricter written “no dogs on school grounds” policy but limited its enforcement to regular school hours (8:50 a.m.–3:45 p.m.).
Evidence showed Sheridan administrators had discretion to set and enforce local rules and to determine staff supervision schedules; staff did not monitor the playground after the regular schoolday and treated the playground as a public park after hours.
The district court granted summary judgment for LPS, holding LPS immune under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) discretionary function exception and alternatively finding no legal duty; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on discretionary-function-immunity grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sheridan’s “no dogs” policy extended beyond school hours	Lamberts: testimony creates a factual dispute that the policy applied after-school	LPS: undisputed evidence shows policy and enforcement applied only during school hours	No genuine factual dispute; policy limited to school hours
Whether failure to enforce policy after hours is an operational negligence claim not protected by PSTCA discretionary function exception	Lamberts: failure to enforce was operational misconduct by employees (not protected)	LPS: decision not to supervise/enforce after hours was an administrative, policy judgment	Court: discretionary-function exception applies — decision was policy-level and protected
Whether LPS owed a legal duty to supervise playground after dismissal	Lamberts: duty to supervise and enforce policy existed	LPS: no duty under these facts; supervision decisions are discretionary	Court affirmed dismissal on immunity; alternatively found no duty

McGauley v. Washington County, 297 Neb. 134, 897 N.W.2d 851 (2017) (discretionary-function exception analysis and immunity under PSTCA)
Shipley v. Department of Roads, 283 Neb. 832, 813 N.W.2d 455 (2012) (STCA and PSTCA discretionary-function principles apply similarly)
Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12, 875 N.W.2d 435 (2016) (discretionary-function exception applies to policy-level decisions, not operational acts)
Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133, 864 N.W.2d 399 (2015) (examples of discretionary functions: program initiation, schedules, and regulatory judgments)
Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019) (suits barred by sovereign immunity are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Williamson v. Bellevue Med. Ctr., 304 Neb. 312, 934 N.W.2d 186 (2019) (summary-judgment standard restated for appellate review)