Brandon v. County of Richardson

Supreme Court of Nebraska
624 N.W.2d 604 (2001)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Nebraska's comparative negligence statute does not permit a negligent tortfeasor to reduce their liability for noneconomic damages by allocating a percentage of fault to non-party intentional tortfeasors. Liability for intentional torts and negligent torts are fundamentally different in kind and cannot be apportioned together.

Facts:

In November 1993, Teena Brandon, a transgender man, moved to Richardson County, Nebraska, presenting as male.
John Lotter and Thomas Nissen became suspicious of Brandon's sexual identity.
On December 25, 1993, Lotter and Nissen assaulted Brandon, forcibly removing Brandon's pants to reveal Brandon's female anatomy to a friend.
Later that same morning, Lotter and Nissen beat Brandon, drove Brandon to a remote location, and both sexually assaulted Brandon.
Brandon escaped and reported the rapes to law enforcement. During a subsequent interview, Richardson County Sheriff Charles Laux was demeaning, accusatory, and asked prurient and irrelevant questions about Brandon's gender identity and sexual history.
Brandon agreed to cooperate and testify against Lotter and Nissen. Sheriff Laux was informed that Lotter and Nissen had threatened to kill Brandon for reporting the crimes.
The sheriff's office knew of the threats and the violent criminal histories of Lotter and Nissen but took no measures to protect Brandon.
On December 31, 1993, Lotter and Nissen went to the farmhouse where Brandon was staying and murdered Brandon, Lisa Lambert, and Phillip Devine.

Procedural Posture:

JoAnn Brandon, the victim's mother, sued Richardson County and Sheriff Charles B. Laux in the district court for negligence, wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
After an initial dismissal and appeal (Brandon I), the case proceeded to a bench trial in the district court.
The trial court found the county negligent and awarded economic and noneconomic damages.
The trial court reduced the noneconomic damage award by 85% to account for the intentional torts of the murderers, Lotter and Nissen, and by 1% for Brandon's own contributory negligence.
The trial court denied recovery on the IIED claim, finding Sheriff Laux's conduct was not extreme and outrageous.
The trial court awarded only 'nominal damages' (effectively zero) for loss of society and companionship.
JoAnn Brandon (appellant) appealed the reduction of damages, the denial of the IIED claim, and the nominal damages award to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The county (appellee) cross-appealed the finding of negligence.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Nebraska's comparative negligence statute, which allows for the allocation of noneconomic damages among defendants based on their percentage of negligence, permit a negligent defendant to reduce its liability by allocating fault to non-party intentional tortfeasors?

Opinions:

Majority - Hendry, C.J.

No. Nebraska's comparative negligence statute does not permit a negligent defendant to reduce its liability by allocating fault to non-party intentional tortfeasors. The plain language of the statute provides for allocation based on a defendant's percentage of 'negligence,' and does not mention intentional torts. The court reasoned that contributory negligence has never been a defense to an intentional tort, and the comparative negligence scheme only applies where contributory negligence is a defense. Furthermore, the court emphasized that negligent and intentional torts are different in kind, not just degree, and it would be irrational public policy to allow a party who negligently fails to discharge a duty to protect to reduce its liability precisely because the foreseeable intentional tort it had a duty to prevent occurred. Such allocation would reduce the negligent party's incentive to comply with the applicable standard of care.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Nebraska preventing the apportionment of fault between negligent and intentional tortfeasors under the state's comparative fault statute. The ruling is significant because it ensures that a party with a duty to protect others from foreseeable criminal acts cannot evade responsibility by shifting blame to the criminal actor. This strengthens tort claims against entities like property owners, employers, or government bodies for negligent security or failure to protect. The case solidifies the legal principle that negligence and intentional wrongdoing are distinct categories of fault that cannot be compared on a single continuum for liability purposes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Brandon v. County of Richardson (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature