Susman v. Kearney Towing & Repair Ctr., 970 N.W.2d 82

On June 10, 2014, Kearney Towing mounted and balanced a used tire on a Dandee Concrete pickup.
On May 1, 2015, the pickup suffered a tread separation of the right rear tire and rolled over; passengers Shane Loveland and Jacob Summers were injured.
Plaintiffs (Loveland and Summers) sued Kearney for negligence on April 12, 2019 (alleging negligent inspection/installation of the tire).
Kearney moved for summary judgment arguing the 4-year statute of limitations (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207/§ 25-206) began at the June 2014 installation, so the April 2019 suit was time-barred.
The district court initially held the negligence claim accrued at the May 2015 accident, but on reconsideration ruled accrual occurred at the June 2014 installation and granted summary judgment for Kearney.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether an ordinary negligence cause of action accrues at the defendant’s act/omission or when the plaintiff has a right to institute suit (i.e., upon injury).

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does an ordinary negligence claim under §25-207 accrue?	Accrues when plaintiff suffers actual injury (May 1, 2015); suit timely.	Accrues when the wrongful act/omission occurs (June 10, 2014); suit barred.	Accrual requires the plaintiff to have a right to sue (i.e., actual injury/aggrievement). Accrual was at the May 1, 2015 accident; summary judgment reversed.
Does prior language in Celotex support an occurrence rule for all torts (accrual at act/omission)?	Celotex dicta is not controlling; accrual must align with established accrual principles.	Celotex’s statement supports an occurrence rule for torts.	The court disapproved Celotex’s contrary dicta to the extent it suggests accrual for ordinary negligence runs from the defendant’s act regardless of plaintiff’s right to sue.

Bohrer v. Davis, 94 Neb. 367, 143 N.W. 209 (Neb. 1913) (statute of limitations does not run until the plaintiff has a right of action)
Rosnick v. Marks, 218 Neb. 499, 357 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 1984) (discusses accrual in professional negligence and relation of mis‑conduct to injury)
Grand Island Sch. Dist. #2 v. Celotex Corp., 203 Neb. 559, 279 N.W.2d 603 (Neb. 1979) (dicta stating tort accrues at act/omission; disapproved here to the extent inconsistent)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (federal statement on accrual and when statute of limitations begins to run)
Condon v. A. H. Robins Co., 217 Neb. 60, 349 N.W.2d 622 (Neb. 1984) (accrual principles and limitations law in Nebraska)