Opinion ID: 2135784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: summary judgment for oppd

Text: Turning to the issue of whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of OPPD, we note that OPPD is a political subdivision as defined by Neb.Rev. Stat. § 13-903(1) (Reissue 1987). Therefore, any suit brought against OPPD must be brought pursuant to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 13-901 et seq. (Reissues 1987 & 1991 & Cum. Supp.1992). Section 13-905 of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act states in pertinent part: All tort claims under [the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act] shall be filed with the clerk, secretary, or other official whose duty it is to maintain the official records of the political subdivision.... Schmidt, in his fifth amended petition, the operative petition before the court at the time of OPPD's summary judgment motion, alleged that O.P.P.D. [had] received valid and sufficient notice of claim under Nebraska Governmental Tort Claims Act, said claim was withdrawn on February 14, 1989, the letter of withdrawl [sic] is marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as if fully set out. In its answer to Schmidt's fifth amended petition, OPPD specifically [denied] that Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of the Nebraska Political Subdivision's [sic] Tort Claim [sic] Act and [put] Plaintiff on strict proof of same. In his reply, Schmidt made only a general denial of each and every allegation in defendants' answer except those allegations which constitute an admission against the defendants. Compliance with the filing or presentment of claim provision in § 13-905 is a condition precedent to commencement of a negligence action against a political subdivision. Millman v. County of Butler, 235 Neb. 915, 458 N.W.2d 207 (1990). Because Schmidt has alleged that OPPD had received notice of his claim, and OPPD has specifically denied that Schmidt complied with the provisions of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Schmidt met a condition precedent to commencement of his negligence action against OPPD. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of OPPD, and it is not necessary for us to further determine whether there are other genuine issues of material fact as to OPPD's liability.