Opinion ID: 1291067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: exceptions to pstca

Text: Harris next argues that the PSTCA does not apply to her claim because it falls within two statutory exceptions set forth in § 13-910, which provides, in relevant part: The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act ... shall not apply to: . . . . (2) Any claim based upon the exercise or performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision, whether or not the discretion is abused; [or] . . . . (10) Any claim arising out of snow or ice conditions or other temporary conditions caused by nature on any highway... bridge, public thoroughfare, or other public place due to weather conditions. Harris' argument is without merit, however, because she misapprehends the nature of the exceptions set forth in § 13-910. Harris contends that the requirements of the PSTCA do not apply to claims that fall within § 13-910. In fact, the exceptions set forth in § 13-910 are affirmative sovereign immunity defenses to claims brought pursuant to the PSTCA. See, generally, Lawry v. County of Sarpy, 254 Neb. 193, 575 N.W.2d 605 (1998). In other words, if a political subdivision proves that a plaintiff's claim comes within an exception pursuant to § 13-910, then the claim fails based on sovereign immunity, and the political subdivision is not liable. Harris' second assignment of error provides no basis for reversing the judgment of the district court. Even if Harris is correct in contending that her claim falls within § 13-910, such a finding would require that her complaint be dismissed.