Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569

Plaintiff Joseph Pittman was struck and seriously injured by a vehicle driven by Matthew Rivera in the parking area adjacent to 2nd Street Slammer, a bar in Hastings, Nebraska.
Earlier that night Rivera was forcibly removed from the bar by employee Craig Hubbard after assaultive behavior toward his girlfriend and the employee; Rivera left with a designated driver.
About an hour later Rivera returned, was again confronted and escorted outside, got into his vehicle, then performed U-turns and accelerated into a crowd standing near the property line, striking Pittman within about 60 seconds of re-entering the vehicle.
Rivera was criminally convicted for first degree assault and leaving the scene; Pittman sued 2nd Street and its owners for negligence (premises duty to protect patrons from third-party harm).
The district court held that 2nd Street owed a duty of reasonable care but granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Rivera’s conduct (using his vehicle to run down Pittman) was not reasonably foreseeable. Pittman appealed; defendants cross-appealed arguing no duty existed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it recognized a premises-based duty but held no reasonable person could find that the specific harm was foreseeable, so no breach as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2nd Street owed a duty to protect Pittman from third-party violence off/marginally on premises	Pittman: bar knew Rivera was assaultive and should have warned patrons, contacted police, or otherwise protected them	2nd Street: premises duty should not extend to this off-premises/remote violent act; public policy and liquor-control scheme preclude expanded liability	Court: 2nd Street owed a general duty of reasonable care to patrons (premises liability applies)
Whether Rivera’s conduct was a reasonably foreseeable risk such that 2nd Street breached its duty	Pittman: prior assaultive conduct and Rivera returning intoxicated created a factual issue on foreseeability for the jury	2nd Street: prior conduct was qualitatively different; no evidence Rivera targeted Pittman or would use a vehicle as a weapon	Court: Rivera’s act of using his vehicle to run down Pittman was not reasonably foreseeable; summary judgment proper (no breach)

Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658, 861 N.W.2d 444 (2015) (premises duty analysis)
Schroer v. Synowiecki, 231 Neb. 168, 435 N.W.2d 875 (1989) (business open to public owes duty to protect patrons from third parties)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (2010) (foreseeability and leaving factual determinations to jury unless no reasonable person could differ)
Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 876 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. 2016) (cited for procedural/negotiating points in negligence/summary judgment context)