Reiber v. County of Gage
303 Neb. 325
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Chad Gesin was arrested on July 4, 2013, for an alleged domestic incident; officers observed him agitated and smelled alcohol. He had a prior 2011 incident in which he stabbed himself while intoxicated and was placed in emergency protective custody (EPC) then released.
- During 2013 booking at the Gage County jail, arresting officers completed custody forms; statements on forms and by officers noted a vague threatening text and that Gesin was "amped up," but officers observed no current suicidal behavior and Gesin denied suicidal ideation on a medical screening questionnaire which he signed.
- Jail staff followed written protocols: intoxicated inmates were placed in single cells, medical screening was completed, and cell checks were performed hourly (or more frequently for intoxicated or special-management inmates).
- Approximately 40 minutes after placement in a cell, jail staff found Gesin hanging from a blanket; he was cut down, resuscitated, placed on life support, and died days later.
- Gesin’s mother, Rhonda Reiber (special administrator), sued under the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), alleging the county and sheriff failed to follow protocol and should have known Gesin was suicidal; after remand from federal court, a bench trial on liability followed.
- The district court admitted defendant’s psychiatric expert testimony, found jail staff exercised due care under jail rules, concluded the claim was barred by sovereign immunity under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(1), and entered judgment for defendants; Reiber appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of psychiatric expert (Davis) | Reiber: Davis lacked foundation/relevance and could not opine on jailers' standard of care; his foreseeability opinion invaded the court’s role. | Defendants: Davis’s experience assessing suicide risk was relevant and would assist the trier of fact; cross-examination addresses weight. | Court: No abuse of discretion; Davis relevant and helpful under Neb. Evid. R. 702/704; objections go to weight, not admissibility. |
| Whether jail staff exercised due care following rules/regulations | Reiber: Staff failed to follow protocols or otherwise breached the duty to protect Gesin; suicide was reasonably foreseeable. | Defendants: Staff followed screening and monitoring policies; Gesin did not present a known or reasonably foreseeable suicide risk. | Court: Evidence showed staff complied with screening and checks; Gesin’s suicide was not reasonably foreseeable; staff exercised due care. |
| Applicability of PSTCA sovereign-immunity exemption (§ 13-910(1)) | Reiber: Claim falls outside § 13-910(1) because defendants’ acts/omissions were negligent, not the exercise of due care in executing rules. | Defendants: § 13-910(1) bars suits based on acts/omissions where employees exercised due care in applying rules/regulations. | Court: § 13-910(1) applies; claim barred by sovereign immunity; court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Alternative merits of negligence claim | Reiber: Even if immunity did not apply, defendants were negligent. | Defendants: Even on merits, no breach: no foreseeable risk, proper procedures followed. | Court: On the merits, defendants exercised reasonable care and Gesin’s death was not reasonably foreseeable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cingle v. State, 277 Neb. 957 (discussing standard of review and foreseeability in PSTCA actions)
- Goodenow v. State, 259 Neb. 375 (jailer’s duty: reasonably adequate protection and what officers knew or should have known)
- Richardson v. Children’s Hosp., 280 Neb. 396 (expert testimony admissibility standards and focus on methodology)
- State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (discussion of rule abolishing the ultimate-issue prohibition and scope of opinion testimony)