Williamson v. Bellevue Med. Ctr., 934 N.W.2d 186

On Aug. 5, 2012, Peggy Williamson fell on an unpainted, tapered curb between the driveway and main entrance sidewalk at Bellevue Medical Center (BMC) and later sued for negligence/premises liability; after her death the claim was revived by her husband as personal representative.
Surveillance video showed Peggy walked down the same curb seconds earlier without incident, returned toward the entrance, and then tripped on the same area; the curb was the same color as surrounding concrete and had a tapered (flared) edge rather than a step-style face.
BMC submitted evidence the curb complied with building codes, was in good repair, unobstructed and visible, and that no prior complaints or incidents regarding that curb had been reported.
Before the fall, BMC solicited a bid from McGill Restoration to mark curbs campus-wide as part of safety improvements, but BMC witnesses said that initiative was not prompted by a specific incident or complaint about that curb.
Peggy and other witnesses offered that painting the curb (done after the incident) would have made it more noticeable; BMC’s officials and experts denied any code requirement to paint and said no expert identified the curb as dangerous.
The district court granted summary judgment for BMC, concluding no defect, no code violation, and no evidence the curb posed an unreasonable danger; Williamson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the unpainted, tapered curb constituted an unreasonable dangerous condition on the premises	Williamson: the unpainted taper created an elevation change a visitor would not discover and posed an unreasonable risk (painting would have prevented the fall)	BMC: a curb is an ordinary, expected feature; the curb met codes, was visible and in good repair, and therefore was not an unreasonable danger	Held for BMC — no evidence that the curb was an unreasonable defect given its ordinary, visible condition
Whether BMC should have expected lawful entrants like Peggy would not discover or protect against the curb hazard (foreseeability/notice)	Williamson: evidence (witness statement, post-incident painting, McGill bid) permits an inference that BMC should have anticipated visitors wouldn’t notice the tapered curb	BMC: no prior complaints or incidents, committee work was a general safety initiative, and Peggy traversed the spot earlier, so BMC could not reasonably foresee that visitors would fail to discover/protect against the curb	Held for BMC — plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue that BMC should have expected visitors would not discover or protect against the curb

Hughes v. School Dist. of Aurora, 290 Neb. 47, 858 N.W.2d 590 (summary judgment standard; view evidence in favor of nonmovant)
Parker v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 001, 254 Neb. 754, 579 N.W.2d 526 (curbs are not inherently dangerous; ordinary risk)
Herrera v. Fleming Cos., 265 Neb. 118, 655 N.W.2d 378 (elements of possessor-of-land liability for lawful visitors)
Warner v. Simmons, 288 Neb. 472, 849 N.W.2d 475 (premises-liability/foreseeability principles)
Aguallo v. City of Scottsbluff, 267 Neb. 801, 678 N.W.2d 82 (owner not liable absent expectation that visitor would not discover or protect against danger)
Edwards v. Hy-Vee, 294 Neb. 237, 883 N.W.2d 40 (foreseeability requirement in premises-liability claims)
Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (foreseeability/notice element for land possessor liability)