A.W. v. Lancaster County School District 0001
784 N.W.2d 907 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, the foreseeability of harm is not a question of law for the court to decide as part of its duty analysis, but rather a question of fact for the fact-finder to consider when determining whether a defendant has breached their duty of reasonable care.
Facts:
- On September 22, 2005, Joseph Siems entered Arnold Elementary School through an unlocked main entrance, walking past a sign that required visitors to check in at the main office.
- Siems proceeded past the office without signing in, apparently unnoticed by secretaries, one of whom was a replacement and may not have been properly instructed.
- A teacher, Kathi Olson, saw Siems, thought he looked out of place, and asked if he needed help, but he ignored her.
- Two other teachers, Kelly Long and Connie Peters, also saw Siems. Long directed Siems to a restroom and told him to report to the office afterward, but she did not watch where he went.
- Siems did not go to the indicated restroom but instead entered another one closer to the main entrance.
- C.B., a five-year-old kindergarten student, entered the same restroom while Siems' whereabouts were unknown to school staff.
- Inside the restroom, Siems sexually assaulted C.B.
- C.B. then returned to his classroom and told his teacher that "there was a bad man in the restroom."
Procedural Posture:
- A.W., on behalf of her son C.B., filed a negligence claim against Lancaster County School District 0001 (LPS) in the district court (trial court).
- LPS filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the assault was unforeseeable.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of LPS, finding that the assault was not foreseeable as a matter of law and thus LPS owed no duty to C.B.
- A.W. (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence action, is the foreseeability of a particular injury a question of law for a court to determine when analyzing the existence of a legal duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Gerrard, J.
No. In a negligence action, the foreseeability of harm is not a factor for the court to consider when determining the existence of a legal duty; rather, it is a factual inquiry for the trier of fact when analyzing whether the defendant breached the standard of reasonable care. The court adopted the analysis from the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which clarifies that an actor generally has a duty to exercise reasonable care when their conduct creates a risk of harm. The determination of duty is a policy decision for the court, based on articulated principles, not on the specific, fact-intensive question of foreseeability. Treating foreseeability as a component of duty improperly transforms a question of fact into a question of law, encroaching upon the jury's traditional role. Here, the school district's special relationship with its student, C.B., already established a duty of reasonable care. The central question is whether the district breached that duty, which requires the fact-finder to assess whether the assault was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the school's actions or inactions after Siems entered the building.
Analysis:
This case significantly alters Nebraska negligence law by formally adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts' approach to duty and breach. By reassigning the foreseeability analysis from a question of law for the judge (duty) to a question of fact for the jury (breach), the decision makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain summary judgment on the grounds of an unforeseeable injury. This shift empowers juries to determine what risks were reasonably foreseeable in specific factual scenarios and whether a defendant's conduct was reasonable in light of those risks. The ruling clarifies the distinct functions of the court and the fact-finder, ensuring that policy-based duty determinations remain with the judge while fact-specific inquiries into conduct remain with the jury.
Unlock the full brief for A.W. v. Lancaster County School District 0001