Brown v. State

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the State Tort Claims Act’s recreational activity exception could not be applied on a motion to dismiss because the complaint did not identify the recreational activity in which Aaron G. Brown was engaged. The court reversed the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. For the recreational-activity exception in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,219(14)(a)(i) to apply, the claim must relate to a recreational activity on property leased, owned, or controlled by the State, result from an inherent risk of that recreational activity, and involve no fee charged for participation or spectating.
2. Before applying the recreational-activity exception, a court must identify the particular recreational activity in which the plaintiff was engaged as a participant or spectator.
3. Merely being present on or using a maintained area of state property is not, by itself, a recreational activity under § 81-8,219(14). A recreational activity must involve some leisure activity other than merely being present on state-maintained land.
4. The complaint did not permit a determination as a matter of law that Brown's claim was barred by the recreational-activity exception because it did not identify the specific recreational activity in which he was engaged when injured.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the recreational-activity exception to the State Tort Claims Act barred Brown's negligence claim as a matter of law at the pleading stage.
2. Whether merely being present on or using a maintained area of state property constitutes a recreational activity under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,219(14).
3. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to identify a recreational activity and establish that Brown's injury resulted from an inherent risk of that activity.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded