Nebraska Revised Statute 13-902
The Legislature hereby declares that no political subdivision of the State of Nebraska shall be liable for the torts of its officers, agents, or employees, and that no suit shall be maintained against such political subdivision or its officers, agents, or employees on any tort claim except to the extent, and only to the extent, provided by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. The Legislature further declares that it is its intent and purpose through this enactment to provide uniform procedures for the bringing of tort claims against all political subdivisions, whether engaging in governmental or proprietary functions, and that the procedures provided by the act shall be used to the exclusion of all others.
- Laws 1969, c. 138, § 1, p. 627;
- R.S.1943, (1983), § 23-2401;
- Laws 1992, LB 262, § 7.
1. Suits subject to act
3. Appeals under act
1. Suits subject to act
The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act reflects a limited waiver of governmental immunity and prescribes the exclusive procedure for maintenance of a tort claim against a political subdivision or its officers, agents, or employees. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Tort actions against political subdivisions of the State of Nebraska are governed exclusively by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. McKenna v. Julian, 277 Neb. 522, 763 N.W.2d 384 (2009).
The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act removes, in part, the traditional immunity of subdivisions for the negligent acts of their employees. Talbot v. Douglas County, 249 Neb. 620, 544 N.W.2d 839 (1996).
A sanitary and improvement district is a "political subdivision" to which the terms of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act apply. West Omaha Inv. v. S.I.D. No. 48, 227 Neb. 785, 420 N.W.2d 291 (1988).
A drainage district is a political subdivision within the meaning of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. Parriott v. Drainage District No. 6, 226 Neb. 123, 410 N.W.2d 97 (1987).
An irrigation district properly organized under the statutes is a political subdivision. Peterson v. Gering Irr. Dist., 219 Neb. 281, 363 N.W.2d 145 (1985).
This act specifically excludes from its provisions any claim arising in respect to the detention of goods or merchandise by any law enforcement officer. Nash v. City of North Platte, 198 Neb. 623, 255 N.W.2d 52 (1977).
This section removes, partially, the traditional immunity of subdivisions for the negligent acts of their employees and officers. Koepf v. County of York, 198 Neb. 67, 251 N.W.2d 866 (1977).
Person intoxicated when confined in cell with another who attacked and injured him recovered damages from city under this act. Daniels v. Andersen, 195 Neb. 95, 237 N.W.2d 397 (1975).
The common law rule of governmental immunity has not been completely abrogated in Nebraska, and an action for damages for misrepresentation and deceit is not permitted. Hall v. Abel Inv. Co., 192 Neb. 256, 219 N.W.2d 760 (1974).
Claim for indemnification and contribution from political subdivision of state does not have to be filed pursuant to the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, and its one-year statute of limitations does not apply. Waldinger Co. v. P & Z Co., Inc., 414 F.Supp. 59 (D. Neb. 1976).
Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act including one-year notice of claim requirement and two-year limitation for bringing action held constitutional. Campbell v. City of Lincoln, 195 Neb. 703, 240 N.W.2d 339 (1976).
3. Appeals under act
A district court's factual findings in a case brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act will not be set aside unless such findings are clearly incorrect. Zeller v. County of Howard, 227 Neb. 667, 419 N.W.2d 654 (1988); Hughes v. Enterprise Irrigation Dist., 226 Neb. 230, 410 N.W.2d 494 (1987); Lynn v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 225 Neb. 121, 403 N.W.2d 335 (1987).
In reviewing a bench trial under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, sections 23-2401 et seq., the Supreme Court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party, resolving any conflicts in the evidence in favor of that party and giving to that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be deduced from the evidence. The findings of fact of the trial court in a proceeding under this act will not be set aside unless such findings are clearly incorrect. Phillips v. City of Omaha, 227 Neb. 233, 417 N.W.2d 12 (1987).
A municipality, sued under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, may avail itself of the immunity protections established in the Recreational Liability Act as an owner of land. Bailey v. City of North Platte, 218 Neb. 810, 359 N.W.2d 766 (1984).
Findings of fact made by the district court in a case brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, section 23-2401 et seq., will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong. Watson v. City of Omaha, 209 Neb. 835, 312 N.W.2d 256 (1981); Craig v. Gage County, 190 Neb. 320, 208 N.W.2d 82 (1973).
In a proceeding brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, the findings of fact by the trial court will not be overturned unless clearly wrong. Lee v. City of Omaha, 209 Neb. 345, 307 N.W.2d 800 (1981); Naber v. City of Humboldt, 197 Neb. 433, 249 N.W.2d 726 (1977).
The trial court was not clearly wrong in inferring from a political subdivision's admission that an action was brought "pursuant to" the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act that the plaintiff completely complied with the act, in view of the fact that the political subdivision never challenged compliance through summary judgment, motion for a new trial, or otherwise. Schmid v. Malcolm Sch. Dist., 233 Neb. 580, 447 N.W.2d 20 (1989).
A petition to state a claim against a political subdivision must allege compliance with the terms of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. West Omaha Inv. v. S.I.D. No. 48, 227 Neb. 785, 420 N.W.2d 291 (1988).
The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act does not foreclose suits against individual employees of a political subdivision for their own personal negligence. Dieter v. Hand, 214 Neb. 257, 333 N.W.2d 772 (1983).
Court held evidence of custom and usage in the electrical industry is pertinent on the question of negligence and is a question of fact in determining whether due care has been exercised. Steel Containers, Inc. v. Omaha P. P. Dist., 198 Neb. 81, 251 N.W.2d 669 (1977).