Williams v. City of Omaha
291 Neb. 403
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Collision at Spaulding and 30th Streets: Webster (white car) ran a stop sign and struck Williams’ vehicle; an Omaha police cruiser (Officers Wasmund and Fancher) was nearby.
- Officers activated overhead lights while following Webster and accelerated shortly before the collision; siren was not used. Radio transmission by Fancher later reported a pursuit; a supervisor ordered termination after the collision.
- Officers testified they initially intended a traffic stop for expired registration and that they began following only after the crash; Fancher radioed that they were in pursuit shortly after the collision.
- District court found officers activated lights, Webster "jack-rabbited" (accelerated), both Webster and the cruiser accelerated before impact, and the officers decided to pursue at or before the time Webster fled the stop sign.
- District court entered judgment for Williams under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-911 (vehicular pursuit statute), awarding $172,138.56; City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "vehicular pursuit" under § 13-911 began before the collision | Williams: Officers activated lights and accelerated, which constituted an active attempt to apprehend Webster | City: Officers only attempted a traffic stop; time was too short and intent was merely to stop, not apprehend | Held: Yes — activating lights and accelerating supported an inference of an active attempt to apprehend; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Webster was aware of the attempt to apprehend | Williams: Webster increased speed and ran the stop sign after lights were activated, showing awareness | City: No direct testimony from Webster; events too brief to show awareness | Held: Yes — court reasonably inferred awareness from Webster’s actions |
| Whether Webster resisted apprehension as required by statute | Williams: Webster resisted by accelerating/ignoring officers and running the stop sign | City: Disputed timing but conceded facts of resisting | Held: Yes — district court’s finding that Webster resisted was supported by evidence |
| Whether the pursuit was a proximate cause of Williams’ injuries | Williams: Pursuit caused Webster to flee and thus proximately caused the collision | City: If no pursuit occurred pre-collision, it could not be proximate cause | Held: Yes — because pursuit elements were satisfied, pursuit was a proximate cause of the crash |
Key Cases Cited
- Lalley v. City of Omaha, 266 Neb. 893 (2003) (interpretation of pursuit statute elements)
- Staley v. City of Omaha, 271 Neb. 543 (2006) (proximate-cause analysis for pursuits)
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899 (2012) (strict liability for innocent third parties under § 13-911)
- Maclovi-Sierra v. City of Omaha, 290 Neb. 443 (2015) (appellate review of factual findings under Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act)
- Credit Mgmt. Servs. v. Jefferson, 290 Neb. 664 (2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)