S-21-0885 Michael T. and Cathy D. Christensen, Individually, and as Parents and Next Friends of C.C., and as Co-Guardians and Co-Conservators of C.C., a Protected Person (Appellants) v. Broken Bow Public Schools, a/k/a Broken Bow School, District 25, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Beverly L. Sherbeck, Personal Representative of the Estate of Albert L. Sherbeck (Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Custer County, Judge Karin L. Noakes
Attorneys: David S. Houghton and Keith A. Harvat (Houghton Bradford Law Firm) and James V. Duncan (Sennett Duncan Law Firm) for Appellant; Jared J. Krejci (Smith, Johnson, Allen, Connick, & Hansen) for Appellee; and Matthew B. Reilly and Thomas J. Culhane (Erickson & Sederstrom) for Appellee.
Civil: Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
Proceedings below: The trial court found that Appellee was not legally responsible for injuries and damages from a motor vehicle accident in which Appellant was injured. Appellant’s Petition to By-Pass the Court of Appeals was granted, and the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court docket.
Issues: Appellants assert the following assignments of error: 1) The District Court erred in determining that “BBPS [Broken Bow Public Schools] cannot be legally responsible for damages incurred as a result of failing to ensure the minor child was wearing a seat belt” and granting BBPS’ Motion for Directed Verdict; 2) The District Court erred in relying upon Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,269 and determining that “the seatbelt defense” prohibits evidence of the non-use of seatbelts in order to establish the direct negligence of BBPS in failing to protect the safety of its students entrusted to its care and custody; 3) The District Court erred in dismissing all causes of action against BBPS for the injuries and damages suffered and sustained by the minor child, as a student and as a passenger in the 2009 Ford Econoline E350 10-passenger van owned by BBPS and operated by BBPS’ agents and employees; and 4) The District Court erred in denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial.
Appellees assert the following assignments of error on cross-appeal: 1) The district court should have sua sponte dismissed all claims against Mrs. Sherbeck with prejudice due to issue preclusion; 2) The district court should have sua sponte dismissed all claims against Mrs. Sherbeck with prejudice due to the law-of-the-case doctrine; and 3) The district court should have sua sponte dismissed all claims against Mrs. Sherbeck with prejudice due to Article I, Section Six of the Nebraska Constitution.