Title: Peterson v. Gering Irr. Dist.
Citation: 219 Neb. 281, 363 N.W.2d 145
Docket Number: 542
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 1985

363 N.W.2d 145 (1985) 219 Neb. 281 Dolan PETERSON et al., Appellants, v. GERING IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellee. No. 83-542. Supreme Court of Nebraska. February 15, 1985. *146 Dennis L. Arfmann, Gering, for appellants. Steven C. Smith of Van Steenberg, Brower, Chaloupka, Mullin &amp; Holyoke, Scottsbluff, for appellee. KRIVOSHA, C.J., BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ. BOSLAUGH, Justice. This is a companion case to case No. 83-366, decided today. The cases were consolidated for argument in this court. The essential facts concerning the disputes between the parties are stated in case No. 83-366. In this case the plaintiffs sought to recover alleged damages to their crops, totaling $33,009.87, for the defendant's failure to properly deliver water during the 1981 growing season. On July 24, 1981, the plaintiffs submitted a document entitled "CLAIM" to the chairman of the board of the Gering Irrigation District. The claim alleged that the defendant was liable for damages resulting from its failure to deliver water pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 46-160 (Reissue 1984). No action was taken on this "claim." Subsequently, on June 22, 1982, plaintiffs filed a petition alleging the same in the district court for Scotts Bluff County. After numerous motions and amendments to the pleadings, the trial court, on May 26, 1983, sustained defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no issue as to any material fact and that the claim was not filed pursuant to the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. The plaintiffs have appealed. The issues on appeal are whether (1) the Gering Irrigation District is a political subdivision; (2) plaintiffs' "claim" satisfied the requirements for filing under the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 23-2401 et seq. (Reissue 1983); and (3) the plaintiffs were entitled to an additional 6 months within which to file a claim pursuant to the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. *147 Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom it directed, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Bruyninga v. Nuss, 216 Neb. 801, 346 N.W.2d 245 (1984). As to the first issue, we believe that it is clear that the Gering Irrigation District is a political subdivision. In Wight v. McGuigan, 94 Neb. 358, 360, 143 N.W. 232, 233 (1913), overruled on other grounds 117 Neb. 841, 223 N.W. 132 (1929), this court said: "It has previously been declared by this court that an irrigation district properly organized under the statute is a public corporation. It is a political subdivision...." As such, actions against an irrigation district are governed by the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, which provides that "no suit shall be maintained against such political subdivision on any tort claim except to the extent and only to the extent, provided by this act." § 23-2401. Section 23-2404 provides: The time constraints within which to file a tort claim are governed by § 23-2416, which provides in part: "Every claim against a political subdivision permitted under this act shall be forever barred, unless within one year after such claim accrued, the claim is made in writing to the governing body." It is plaintiffs' contention that they did file a claim; therefore, the next issue to be considered is whether plaintiffs' "claim" satisfied the requirements for filing under this act. The record shows that on July 24, 1981, the plaintiffs served a document entitled "CLAIM" upon the chairman of the board of the Gering Irrigation District. The document began: (Emphasis supplied.) The document contained no statement as to the amount of damage or loss sustained by the plaintiffs, nor did it allege that such damage or loss had occurred. In a sworn affidavit the president of the Gering Irrigation District stated that "the Board at all times considered the document as a notice filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-160, R.R.S. 1943." Section 46-160 states that an irrigation district is liable in damages for negligence in delivering or failure to deliver water; provided, however, that the chairman of the board of directors of the district is served with written notice within 30 days after such negligent acts are committed. Despite plaintiffs' characterization of the document as a "claim," it made no demand against the district; rather, it only alerted the district to the possibility of a claim. In In re Estate of Feuerhelm, 215 Neb. 872, 341 N.W.2d 342 (1983), this court considered whether a "STATEMENT OF *148 CLAIM" filed against an estate was a claim within the limitations of Neb.Rev. Stat. § 30-2485 (Reissue 1979). The court distinguished a notice from a claim, stating at 875, 341 N.W.2d at 344-45: The remaining issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an additional 6 months within which to file a claim pursuant to the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. As relevant here, § 23-2416 provides: On November 4, 1982, a demurrer was sustained on the basis that the defendant was a political subdivision. The plaintiffs were given 20 days to amend their petition, and in the failure thereof the action would be dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their petition twice, but did not allege a cause of action other than in tort. Neither did plaintiffs file a claim pursuant to the tort claims act. On May 26, 1983, summary judgment was granted for the defendant on essentially the same grounds. In its first order of November 4, 1982, the trial court determined that the act provided the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs under the pleadings in this case. Section 23-2416 mandates: "[T]he time to make a claim and to begin suit under this act shall be extended for a period of six months from the date of the court order making such determination...." Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, the statute does not obligate the court to make a finding that the time to make a claim has been extended. Rather, it was within the plaintiffs' right to make such a claim; having failed to do so, their action was barred. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.