Williamson v. Bellevue Med. Ctr.
304 Neb. 312
Neb.2019Background
- Peggy Williamson tripped and fell on a tapered, unpainted curb between the driveway and main-entrance sidewalk at Bellevue Medical Center (BMC) and suffered significant injuries; she later died and her husband revived the suit as personal representative.
- Surveillance video showed Peggy walked over the same spot seconds earlier without incident, then returned and tripped.
- BMC produced evidence the curb met building codes, was in good repair, visible, and there were no prior complaints or incident reports for that location.
- A preexisting vendor bid proposed painting curbs campus-wide, but BMC's witnesses said that was part of a general safety initiative, not a response to a reported hazard.
- The district court granted summary judgment for BMC, finding no defect or code violation and no expert identifying the curb as dangerous; Williamson appealed, arguing a factual dispute existed over foreseeability that visitors would not discover or guard against the unpainted curb.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | Williamson: disputed facts (visibility/marking) create triable issues. | BMC: evidence shows no dangerous defect and no notice; entitled to judgment. | Affirmed — BMC met burden; Williamson failed to raise a material factual dispute. |
| Did the curb pose an unreasonable risk of harm? | Williamson: unpainted, tapered curb was a hazardous, nonobvious elevation change. | BMC: curb was ordinary, compliant with codes, and visible; curbs are not inherently dangerous. | Court: no evidence the curb was an unreasonable danger. |
| Could BMC reasonably expect visitors would not discover or protect against the hazard? | Williamson: could be foreseeable that lawful entrants wouldn’t notice the unpainted taper. | BMC: no prior incidents/complaints; pedestrian had just traversed the area; no reason to expect non-discovery. | Court: no evidence BMC should have expected visitors like Peggy would fail to discover or protect themselves. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. School Dist. of Aurora, 290 Neb. 47, 858 N.W.2d 590 (summary-judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Parker v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 001, 254 Neb. 754, 579 N.W.2d 526 (curbs are not inherently dangerous)
- Herrera v. Fleming Cos., 265 Neb. 118, 655 N.W.2d 378 (articulating five-element premises-liability framework)
- Aguallo v. City of Scottsbluff, 267 Neb. 801, 678 N.W.2d 82 (foreseeability element: owner must expect visitor won’t discover or protect against danger)
- Edwards v. Hy-Vee, 294 Neb. 237, 883 N.W.2d 40 (application of foreseeability requirement in premises-liability claims)
- Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (summary judgment: court determines whether a material factual dispute exists, not resolve factual contests)