Williams v. State

310 Neb. 588 (2021) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · December 17, 2021 · No. No. S-20-604

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Cameron Williams’ negligence action against the State under the State Tort Claims Act. The court held that the claim arose out of assaults and was therefore barred by the Act’s intentional tort exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity. The court also affirmed denial of leave to amend because the proposed amendments would be futile.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Heavican, C.J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Funke, J.; Papik, J.; Freudenberg, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
December 17, 2021
Docket number
No. S-20-604
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Lancaster County District Court's dismissal of a negligence action under the State Tort Claims Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of leave to amend as futile.
Standard of review
Dismissal on the pleadings is reviewed de novo, accepting the complaint's allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Whether a claim falls within the State Tort Claims Act or its exceptions is reviewed independently as a question of law. Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion, although the legal conclusion that amendment would be futile is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Nebraska Supreme Court opinion.
Parties
Cameron Williams v. State of Nebraska, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Scott Frakes, Other State actors
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

motions to dismissnegligencesubject matter jurisdictionmotion to amendstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

Tort Claims Actsovereign immunitynegligencecivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Williams' negligence claim against the State arose out of an assault or battery and was therefore barred by the intentional tort exception to the State Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity.
  2. Whether the district court properly denied leave to amend the complaint as futile.
  3. Whether the district court committed reversible procedural error by ruling on the motion to dismiss before ruling on the pending motion to amend.

Holdings

  1. A negligence claim against the State is barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,219(4) when the injury and damages arise out of an assault, even if the claim is pleaded as negligent failure to protect or negligent security rather than as an intentional tort.
  2. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed amendments, including a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory, would still arise out of the assaults and therefore could not withstand a motion to dismiss.
  3. The district court did not commit reversible error by ruling on the motion to dismiss before the motion to amend because subject matter jurisdiction was a threshold issue and the court effectively resolved both motions together.

Key quotations

We have previously rejected “semantic recasting of events” to “circumvent the assault and battery exemption through ‘artful pleading.’” (596)
The district court correctly dismissed Williams’ negligence claim against the State because it arose out of an assault and thus was barred by the intentional tort exception. (598)

Factual background

Cameron Williams was incarcerated in Nebraska Department of Correctional Services custody, and the department had placed inmate Jonathan Armendariz, who had murdered Williams' brother, on a keep-separate monitoring list. Despite repeated warnings and requests for protection or transfer, the department placed Armendariz in Williams' housing unit. Williams assaulted Armendariz because he feared an imminent attack, and Williams was later stabbed by inmates allegedly acting in retaliation for that assault.

Procedural history

Williams sued the State, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, and related state actors, alleging negligent failure to protect him from a known inmate threat. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, concluding that the claim arose out of assault or battery and was barred by the State Tort Claims Act's intentional tort exception. The court also denied Williams leave to amend because any amendment would be futile. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…