Dion v. City of Omaha

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Dion v. City of Omaha

Case Number
S-21-0545
Call Date
March 1, 2022
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Douglas
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-21-0545, Trevor Dion, PR of the Estate of Bryce David Dion, deceased (Appellant) v. City of Omaha, (Cross-Appellant) v. Langley Productions, Inc. (Appellee)

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge James M. Masteller

Attorneys:  Christian T. Williams, Brian E. Jorde, & David A Domina (Domina Law Group) for Appellant, Ryan J. Wiesen (Omaha City Attorney’s Office) for Cross-Appellant, and Bruce A. Smith (Woods Aitken) for Appellee Langley

Civil: PSTCA; wrongful death, indemnification.

Proceedings below: The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee and dismissed with prejudice the Cross-Appellant’s third party claims against Appellee. Following a trial, the district court dismissed the Appellant’s claims against the Cross-Appellant with prejudice. The district court dismissed the Cross-Appellant’s remaining third-party claims against Appellee. This appeal ensued.

Issues:  Appellant argues that the district court erred when it ruled that: 1) the PSTCA barred the Appellant’s claims against the Cross-Appellant and dismissed Appellant’s complaint, 2) Appellant’s claims arose out of an intentional tort for which sovereign immunity is not waived by the PSTCA; 3) OPD officers acted reasonably at all times in the lead up to Bryce Dion’s death; and 4) OPD officers did not owe a heightened duty of care to Bryce Dion while in charge of Mr. Dion on August 26, 2014.

Issues on Cross-Appeal: Cross-Appellant asserts that the district court erred in: 1) holding, as a matter of law, that the indemnification and defense provisions in the COPS filming agreement were ambiguous; 2) holding, as a matter of law, that the indemnification and defense provisions in the COPS filming agreement were unenforceable; 3) dismissing with prejudice the Cross-Appellant’s third-party breach of contract claims against Appellee seeking indemnification and defense of the Estate’s claims against Cross-Appellant; and 4) entering its order on June 14, 2021, to the extent it became a final appealable order enabling appellate review of the July 9, 2019 district court order.

Schedule Code
SC