Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Ctr., 310 Neb. 910

On June 10, 2014, Kearney Towing issued an invoice for mounting and balancing a used tire on a pickup owned by Dandee Concrete; the tire was manufactured in 1994.
On May 1, 2015, the pickup suffered a tread separation causing a rollover accident that injured passengers Shane Loveland and Jacob Summers.
Loveland and Summers sued Kearney Towing for negligence on April 12, 2019 (within 4 years of the accident, more than 4 years after the installation).
Kearney moved for summary judgment, arguing the 4-year statute of limitations began to run at the June 2014 installation; the district court initially denied relief but, on reconsideration, held the negligence claim accrued at installation and granted summary judgment.
Plaintiffs dismissed their contract claim and appealed the dismissal of their negligence action as time barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does an ordinary negligence cause of action under § 25-207 accrue?	Accrues when the plaintiff has the right to sue—i.e., upon actual injury (May 1, 2015).	Accrues when the defendant's act or omission occurs—i.e., at the tire installation (June 10, 2014).	Accrual requires the plaintiff have a right to institute suit; the statute did not begin to run at installation.
Whether Nebraska law (or § 25-207) adopts an "occurrence rule" that starts the limitations period at defendant misconduct regardless of whether a particular plaintiff is yet aggrieved	Plaintiffs: No occurrence rule applies to ordinary negligence; accrual requires a present, justiciable injury to the plaintiff.	Kearney: Legislature intended an easily identifiable occurrence rule to limit tort exposure.	Court rejects an occurrence rule for ordinary negligence under § 25-207 and disapproves dicta to the contrary in Celotex.

Rosnick v. Marks, 218 Neb. 499, 357 N.W.2d 186 (1984) (discusses accrual and distinguishes professional-negligence occurrence rule).
Grand Island Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Celotex Corp., 203 Neb. 559, 279 N.W.2d 603 (1979) (language suggesting tort accrues at act or omission—court here treats that language as dicta and disapproves it to the extent inconsistent).
Bohrer v. Davis, 94 Neb. 367, 143 N.W. 209 (1913) (articulates longstanding rule that limitations do not run until plaintiff has a right of action).
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal precedent on accrual principles cited for accrual occurring when plaintiff can file suit).
Condon v. A. H. Robins Co., 217 Neb. 60, 349 N.W.2d 622 (1984) (reiterates accrual principles and limitations policy).