Maclovi-Sierra v. City of Omaha
290 Neb. 443
| Neb. | 2015Background
- On Jan. 14, 2011, Walter Maclovi‑Sierra (an innocent third party) was struck and permanently injured by a stolen pickup driven by Gino Main near the Q Street exit from southbound Highway 75 in Omaha.
- Off‑duty deputy Monica Anderson spotted the stolen pickup in South Omaha and reported it; Officer Mark Cupak initially attempted a stop on 27th St (displaying lights and drawing his weapon) but the pickup drove around him.
- Officers Timothy Brown and Makayla Stiles then engaged behind the pickup on F Street with lights (siren activated shortly thereafter), followed it onto the Highway 75 entrance ramp, and reached highway speeds; a dashboard video from Stiles’ cruiser records these events and radio traffic.
- Brown radioed "I'm not going to be in pursuit" and shut off lights/siren before the pickup passed under the L Street overpass; shortly thereafter Main lost control after exiting at Q Street and struck Maclovi‑Sierra.
- The district court found (1) Cupak did not pursue Main; (2) Brown and Stiles either did not engage in a statutory "vehicular pursuit" or, if they did, any pursuit terminated before the accident; and (3) the officers’ actions were not the proximate cause of Maclovi‑Sierra’s injuries. The court entered judgment for the City; the plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers engaged in a "vehicular pursuit" under § 13‑911(5) | Maclovi‑Sierra: officers actively attempted to apprehend Main (lights/sirens following at high speed) so § 13‑911 applies | City: Cupak did not pursue; Brown/Stiles either pulled for a stop or ceased pursuit and were not engaged in an active attempt when harm occurred | Court: Cupak not in pursuit; assumed arguendo Brown/Stiles initially pursued but any pursuit ended before accident |
| Whether any pursuit continued at time of the accident | Maclovi‑Sierra: pursuit was ongoing and therefore officers’ conduct proximately caused injury | City: Brown radioed termination and turned off emergency equipment; officers lost visual/audible contact prior to accident | Held: pursuit (if any) terminated when Brown announced he would not be in pursuit and shut off lights/siren |
| Whether officers’ conduct was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries | Maclovi‑Sierra: officers’ pursuit was a proximate cause (strict liability under § 13‑911 requires only that officers’ actions be a proximate cause) | City: causal chain was broken when pursuit ended; Main’s independent reckless driving after losing sight/hearing of cruisers caused the accident | Held: Court found Main’s post‑termination reckless driving was the proximate cause; officers’ conduct not a proximate cause in factfinder’s view |
| Whether the district court misapplied proximate‑cause law | Maclovi‑Sierra: court required officers’ actions to be the sole proximate cause (too strict) | City: court correctly applied law and found causal break based on facts | Held: No reversal — court’s proximate‑cause finding (fact question) was not clearly wrong under the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Blaser v. County of Madison, 285 Neb. 290 (discussing standard of review in Act cases)
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to prevailing political subdivision under the Act)
- Mid Century Ins. Co. v. City of Omaha, 242 Neb. 126 (officer following without seeing vehicle held not a statutory pursuit)
- Staley v. City of Omaha, 271 Neb. 543 (pursuit can remain a proximate cause after radio termination until pursued motorist reasonably perceives termination)
- Meyer v. State, 264 Neb. 545 (officer action need be only a proximate cause, not the sole proximate cause, under strict‑liability provision)