Matt represented the City of Springfield, Nebraska regarding a single-vehicle injury accident that occurred within city limits. Plaintiff sued the City alleging:
Improper intersection control under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
Failing to reasonably place a “Stop” or “Yield” sign at the uncontrolled “T” intersection;
Failing to place visible traffic control devices at an intersection with inadequate sight distance (Clear Sight Triangle) for uncontrolled approaching vehicles;
Inadequate guidance for motorists approaching the uncontrolled “T” intersection;
In constructing a retaining wall in excess of six feet high when the Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that said retaining wall would be unreasonably dangerous and/or present a hazard for members of the public;
In constructing a retaining wall in excess of six feet high without providing a barrier at the top of said retaining wall to deter pedestrians, bikers and motorists from falling over the edge of the retaining wall when the Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that said retaining wall would be unreasonably dangerous and/or present a hazard for members of the public;
In failing to warn members of the public of the existence of the retaining wall hazardous drop off in excess of six feet;
Violation of city ordinance regarding retaining wall height;
Failing to provide a forgiving roadside suitable for the safe recovery and control of errant vehicles leaving the street.
Plaintiff claimed over $135,000 in medical bills, past and future lost wages, and permanent injury and disability.
With the help of Creighton law clerk Ali Clark, Matt filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. They argued that the City has discretionary function immunity, the purpose of which is to "prevent judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decision grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort," and that Plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. After full briefing and oral arguments, Hon. George A. Thompson agreed and held:
Defendant has sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act; and
Defendant was not the proximate cause of the accident.
The District Court of Sarpy County granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice.
Erickson | Sederstrom’s experienced litigation group is well-versed in defending claims brought under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Don’t hesitate to contact us with any litigation needs.
