Court Opinion

ID: 9727973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:54:04.735763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.751798
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds that responsibility for the negligence of Douglas County is excused by reason of the discretionary function exemption of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, since I submit that the county had a nondiscretionary responsibility to inquire whether a day-care center was involved and to warn the day-care center and the parents of the day-care center’s attendees of the incidence of bacterial meningitis.
Bacterial meningitis is an extremely dangerous disease which if not immediately treated can cause extensive and permanent *964physical disabilities and, in some cases, death. The debilitating extent of this disease is particularly apparent from a consideration of Sean Thomas Jasa. As a result of the bacterial meningitis, Sean permanently suffers from seizures, severe brain damage, loss of sight and hearing, and a loss of bodily functions. Additionally, the doctors had to amputate several of Sean’s fingers and his left foot.
The county collected information regarding particular cases of bacterial meningitis. This information was not readily available to persons who would be injured by the disease. Once the county had knowledge of an actual case of bacterial meningitis, it had a nondiscretionary duty to act with reasonable care. Cf. Lemke v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 243 Neb. 633, 502 N.W.2d 80 (1993). I submit that under the circumstances of this case, reasonable care required the county at least to inquire whether the afflicted child had been in a day-care setting and to provide meaningful notice to those persons whose children had been exposed to the disease. The reasonableness of these acts is especially apparent in light of the county’s extensive knowledge regarding the extremely debilitating injuries that this disease can cause, particularly to young children, and the near certainty that this disease would spread rapidly in a day-care setting.
The distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts is not as clear-cut as the majority suggests. Although the discretionary function exemption protects social, economic, and political judgments from judicial “second-guessing,” the fact that a particular act involved an element of decisionmaking by the actor does not necessarily indicate that the act is within the exemption. See, Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 S. Ct. 1954, 100 L. Ed. 2d 531 (1988); Lemke, supra. In fact, almost all acts involve some element of decisionmaking. For example, whether a state would maintain a lighthouse is a policy decision, and the entity would not be liable because of the fact that the state decided to operate the lighthouse. However, while maintaining the lighthouse a state actor may be making decisions, but these are decisions involved in implementing the state’s policy and are ministerial, therefore, not subject to the discretionary function exemption. See Indian Towing Co. v. *965United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S. Ct. 122, 100 L. Ed. 48 (1955).
The above example indicates that although decisions are being made while implementing a policy, those decisions are ministerial and must be executed with reasonable care. I recognize that the county’s response to a specific case of bacterial meningitis involves decisionmaking. However, I believe that the response does not constitute the policy itself and thus must be executed with reasonable care. Once the county undertook to collect information regarding bacterial meningitis, the county should have been required to respond to that information reasonably.
From a review of the record in this case, I believe that the county’s inaction despite its wealth of information cannot be attributed to a policy judgment of the type intended to be protected from judicial second-guessing. The record indicates that the county health board had a statutory duty to enact rules and regulations to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The county board permitted these decisions to be made by various employees of the county health department. There was no written evidence presented which reflected any rules and regulations adopted by the county board regarding this delegation of authority. One member of the board testified that he believed these decisions were made by the health department’s “top-staff” people. It is extremely disturbing that even the county board cannot elucidate exactly what decisionmaking authority has been granted to whom by the county board. It appears that alleged policy decisions are being made on an ad hoc basis by persons whose authority is not verifiable.
This untraceable hierarchy of decisionmaking authority effectively insulates the county from liability for its actions. A reviewing court cannot accurately determine what acts are discretionary or policy-making and what acts are ministerial or policy-implementing. The difficulty in distinguishing these is apparent from the record in this case.
According to the record, the chief of the division of clinical services for the county health department, John M. Weston, had the untethered authority to decide when and what disease control actions the county would take. However, Weston *966himself provides conflicting evidence on the issue of whether the county had a policy regarding an actual case of bacterial meningitis in a day-care center.
In a response to interrogatories, Weston answered that if the county had knowledge, in 1987, that there was
a case of bacterial meningitis in a day care center or in a day care attendee, then as a matter of policy John Weston or another employee of the department would have contacted the day care center and/or the parents of the attendee, made recommendations and suggestions to them, and offered the expertise of the Department as a resource. Weston and similar employees did not have the authority to order the day care operators or the parents of attendees to do anything. The decision as to the type of response rested with the day care operators and the parents of attendees.
At trial, Weston testified that the county health department never had a policy regarding whether the county would notify parents of day-care attendees. Weston further testified that the county health department did not have a policy regarding whether the county would notify the day-care center itself.
An epidemiology nurse employed by the county health department testified that her duties included visiting day-care centers in which the county had received notice that a communicable disease may have occurred. According to the nurse, she was to visit the day-care center to determine whether there was a chance that other children had been infected, and would make recommendations to prevent the spread of the disease. The nurse stated that she was not sent to West Omaha Day Care after the first report of bacterial meningitis or after the report of Jasa’s case of bacterial meningitis.
If the county had a policy to address cases of bacterial meningitis in a day-care center, then the actions necessary to implement that policy — inquiring whether a day-care center is involved and providing meaningful notification — are nondiscretionary. On the other hand, if the county collected information of actual cases of bacterial meningitis but did not have a specific policy regarding its response to the information, then the actual response should be deemed nondiscretionary. I *967do not subscribe to the theory that the county’s inaction itself constitutes a protected policy decision by default. The discretionary function exemption protects policy judgments and should not shield the county from its failure to act. I am not convinced that the county has demonstrated it made a policy-type decision not to act; therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Lanphier, J., joins in this dissent.