Opinion ID: 1736802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: doe's prima facie case

Text: The district court did not specifically address the question of whether Doe's complaint alleged a prima facie case. As an alternative ground for affirmance, OPS argues that it did not. We deem it necessary to address this potentially dispositive issue. The PSTCA eliminates, in part, the traditional immunity of political subdivisions for the negligent acts of their employees. Talbot v. Douglas County, 249 Neb. 620, 544 N.W.2d 839 (1996). Except as otherwise provided, in all suits brought under the PSTCA, the political subdivision shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. § 13-908. Public school districts are political subdivisions for purposes of the PSTCA. See § 13-903(1). As noted above, Doe's complaint asserts a personal injury claim based upon allegations of negligence imputed to OPS, a political subdivision. A negligence action brought under the PSTCA has the same elements as a negligence action against a private individual, i.e., duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs Jr./Sr. Pub. Sch., 262 Neb. 66, 628 N.W.2d 697 (2001); Brandon v. County of Richardson, 252 Neb. 839, 566 N.W.2d 776 (1997). A duty is defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another. Munstermann v. Alegent Health-Immanuel Medical Center, 271 Neb. 834, 716 N.W.2d 73 (2006). Whether a duty exists at all is a question of law. Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co., 266 Neb. 601, 667 N.W.2d 244 (2003); Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs Jr./Sr. Pub. Sch., supra . Defining the scope of an existing duty is likewise a question of law. Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co., supra . OPS does not dispute that a general duty of care exists to furnish security for the student body, but argues that it would have a duty to protect specific students from harm by another student only if the other student's conduct was sufficiently foreseeable. Brief for appellee at 26. We agree. See Sharkey v. Board of Regents, 260 Neb. 166, 182, 615 N.W.2d 889, 902 (2000) (holding that public university owes a landowner-invitee duty to its students to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable acts of violence on its campus and the harm that naturally flows therefrom). Neb. Ct. R. of Pldg. in Civ. Actions 8(a)(2) (rev.2003) requires a party asserting a claim to plead a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Doe alleged that prior to the date of the alleged assault on his daughter, OPS had actual knowledge that J.D. had a history of physical and/or sexual misconduct toward other students but took no steps to restrict or restrain him. OPS argues that this allegation is insufficient to raise an issue of foreseeability. We disagree. The allegation places OPS on notice that Doe is claiming that it had prior knowledge of specific behaviors on the part of J.D. which made his alleged subsequent violent conduct reasonably foreseeable. Greater factual specificity is the object of discovery. Whether the alleged assault in this case was foreseeable is a matter of proof. See Doe v. Gunny's Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653, 593 N.W.2d 284 (1999). Construing the allegations of the complaint in a light most favorable to Doe, as we are required to do at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that it is sufficient under our notice pleading rules to state a claim for relief under the PSTCA.