996 N.W.2d 56
Neb.2023Background
- Aaron Brown was seated at a picnic table at the bottom of a slope in a state recreation area when a state employee (park superintendent Joseph Blazek) was mowing on the slope with a riding lawnmower; the mower slipped on wet grass, slid down the slope, struck the picnic table, and injured Brown.
- Brown sued the State for negligence after the State Claims Board denied his tort claim; the district court initially dismissed under the STCA recreational-activity exemption, this court reversed and remanded in 2020, and the case proceeded to discovery.
- Depositions and evidence showed about an inch of precipitation the prior day, both witnesses testified the mower slid because the grass was wet, and Brown conceded the wetness was the cause and that the collision was not Blazek’s fault.
- The State moved for summary judgment arguing immunity under two STCA exemptions: (1) the weather-conditions exemption, § 81-8,219(11), and (2) the recreational-activity exemption; it also argued alternative defenses of no breach or contributory negligence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State based on both exemptions; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed solely on the ground that Brown’s claim falls within the STCA weather-conditions exemption (and held a riding lawnmower is not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the STCA motor-vehicle carve-out).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the STCA weather-conditions exemption (§ 81-8,219(11)) bars Brown's negligence claim | Brown: claim arises from Blazek's negligence, not merely weather; alternatively, mower is a motor vehicle so the motor-vehicle carve-out applies | State: claim "arises out of" a temporary, natural, weather-caused condition (wet grass) on state property; riding lawnmower is not a "motor vehicle" under the STCA | Held: Claim "arises out of" wet grass; riding lawnmower is not a "motor vehicle" for § 81-8,219(11); weather-conditions exemption bars suit; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the recreational-activity exemption bars the suit | Brown: exemption did not apply (previous reversal indicated factual issues) | State: recreational-activity exemption applies | Held: Court did not decide because weather-conditions exemption resolved the case in the State's favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (sovereign immunity and limits on suits against states)
- Clark v. Sargent Irr. Dist., 311 Neb. 123 (STCA/PSTCA provide limited waiver and list statutory exemptions; exemption -> jurisdictional dismissal)
- Mercer v. North Central Serv., 308 Neb. 224 (question whether STCA exemption bars negligence claim is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Schuemann v. Timperley, 314 Neb. 298 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Rouse v. State, 301 Neb. 1037 (statutory waivers of sovereign immunity strictly construed against waiver; exemptions broadly read)
- Federated Serv. Ins. Co. v. Alliance Constr., 282 Neb. 638 ("arising out of" requires only a but-for causal connection)
- Hammond v. Nemaha Cty., 7 Neb. App. 124 (Court of Appeals applied broad "arising out of" causation in PSTCA weather-context)
- Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522 (interpretation of "arising out of" in related statutory context)
- Woollen v. State, 256 Neb. 865 (distinguished where condition was not temporary/natural but long-standing defect)
- McDonald v. DeCamp Legal Servs., 260 Neb. 729 (discussed interplay of negligent human-created conditions vs. natural weather conditions under PSTCA)
- Stick v. City of Omaha, 289 Neb. 752 (what qualifies as a "public place" under weather-conditions exemption)