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

On June 10, 2014, Kearney Towing allegedly inspected, mounted, and balanced a used tire on a Dandee Concrete pickup truck (invoice reflects “mount and balance” and “scrap tire”).
On May 1, 2015, the right rear tire suffered tread separation, causing a single-vehicle rollover that injured passengers Shane Loveland and Jacob Summers.
Loveland and Summers sued Kearney Towing for negligence (and initially breach of contract) on April 12, 2019 — within 4 years of the 2015 accident but more than 4 years after the 2014 installation.
Kearney Towing moved for summary judgment under the 4-year tort statute of limitations (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207); the district court first denied the motion but, on reconsideration, held the negligence cause accrued at the time of the installation (June 10, 2014) and granted summary judgment.
Plaintiffs dismissed the contract claim and appealed; they did not invoke a discovery rule or equitable estoppel. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the negligence claim accrued when plaintiffs had the right to sue (i.e., upon the 2015 injury), not at the earlier installation date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does an ordinary negligence cause of action accrue for purposes of the 4-year statute (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207)?	Accrues when plaintiff has a right to institute suit — here, on the date of the injury (May 1, 2015).	Accrues when the defendant's wrongful act or omission occurs (the 2014 tire installation); statute should run from the occurrence.	Court held accrual requires the plaintiff to be an aggrieved party with a present right to sue; statute did not begin to run at installation but at the injury date.

Grand Island School Dist. #2 v. Celotex Corp., 203 Neb. 559 (1979) (dicta stating tort accrues when act/omission occurs; Nebraska Supreme Court disapproved that interpretation to the extent it suggests accrual for non‑aggrieved third parties)
Rosnick v. Marks, 218 Neb. 499 (1984) (interpreting accrual in professional negligence contexts and distinguishing occurrence/discovery rules)
Bohrer v. Davis, 94 Neb. 367 (1913) (longstanding statement that statute of limitations does not run until the cause of action exists)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal articulation that a claim accrues when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp., 273 Neb. 422 (2007) (discussion of § 25-207 as the 4-year limitation for torts and its application)