Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569

At 2nd Street Slammer (a bar), Matthew Rivera was forcibly removed after an assaultive altercation with his girlfriend and an employee; he left with a designated driver.
About an hour later as the bar was closing, Rivera returned, was again confronted and escorted outside by employee Craig Hubbard, then got into his vehicle and drove off.
Rivera made abrupt U-turns, revved his engine, and raced toward a crowd of patrons standing near the property line; an employee yelled for patrons to get out of the way.
Rivera struck Joseph Pittman with his vehicle within about 60 seconds of entering the car, causing serious injuries; Rivera was criminally convicted of 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 found 2nd Street owed a duty but granted summary judgment, concluding the vehicle assault was not a reasonably foreseeable risk.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment, holding no reasonable person could find 2nd Street breached its duty because the prior inside assaultive conduct did not directly indicate a risk of vehicular attack on a stranger outside the bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2nd Street owed a duty to protect patrons from third-party violence off-premises	Pittman: business must take reasonable steps to prevent known or reasonably foreseeable third-party harm (e.g., call police, warn patrons)	2nd Street: premises liability should be limited to on-premises protection; public policy/abolition of dram shop liability cuts against extending duty	Court: 2nd Street owed a general duty of reasonable care to patrons (premises rule applies)
Whether Rivera’s vehicular assault was reasonably foreseeable (breach)	Pittman: known assaultive behavior and return while patrons leaving made vehicular attack foreseeable; question for jury	2nd Street: Rivera’s prior inside assault was different in nature; no evidence he targeted Pittman or intended a vehicular attack — thus unforeseeable as a matter of law	Court: Not foreseeable as matter of law; no reasonable person could differ; summary judgment affirmed

Peterson v. Kings Gate Partners, 290 Neb. 658, 861 N.W.2d 444 (2015) (articulates duty question as legal issue dependent on facts)
Schroer v. Synowiecki, 231 Neb. 168, 435 N.W.2d 875 (1989) (establishes proprietor duty to public to discover/guard against third-party acts)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (2010) (foreseeability assessed at time of alleged negligence; for trier of fact unless no reasonable disagreement)
Phillips v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 876 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. 2016) (cited on procedural/summary judgment standards)