The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act and sections 16-727, 16-728, 23-175, 39-809, and 79-610 shall not apply to:
(1) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of a political subdivision, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute, ordinance, or officially adopted resolution, rule, or regulation, whether or not such statute, ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation is valid;
(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;
(3) Any claim based upon the failure to make an inspection or making an inadequate or negligent inspection of any property other than property owned by or leased to such political subdivision to determine whether the property complies with or violates any statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation or contains a hazard to public health or safety unless the political subdivision had reasonable notice of such hazard or the failure to inspect or inadequate or negligent inspection constitutes a reckless disregard for public health or safety;
(4) Any claim based upon the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of or failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license, certificate, or order. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit a political subdivision's liability for any claim based upon the negligent execution by an employee of the political subdivision in the issuance of a certificate of title under the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act and the State Boat Act except when such title is issued upon an application filed electronically by an approved licensed dealer participating in the electronic dealer services system pursuant to section 60-1507;
(5) Any claim arising with respect to the assessment or collection of any tax or fee or the detention of any goods or merchandise by any law enforcement officer;
(6) Any claim caused by the imposition or establishment of a quarantine by the state or a political subdivision, whether such quarantine relates to persons or property;
(7) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights, except that this subdivision does not apply to a claim under the Healthy Pregnancies for Incarcerated Women Act;
(8) Any claim by an employee of the political subdivision which is covered by the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act;
(9) Any claim arising out of the malfunction, destruction, or unauthorized removal of any traffic or road sign, signal, or warning device unless it is not corrected by the political subdivision responsible within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice of such malfunction, destruction, or removal. Nothing in this subdivision shall give rise to liability arising from an act or omission of any political subdivision in placing or removing any traffic or road signs, signals, or warning devices when such placement or removal is the result of a discretionary act of the political subdivision;
(10) Any claim arising out of snow or ice conditions or other temporary conditions caused by nature on any highway as defined in section 60-624, bridge, public thoroughfare, or other public place due to weather conditions. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit a political subdivision's liability for any claim arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle by an employee of the political subdivision while acting within the course and scope of his or her employment by the political subdivision;
(11) Any claim arising out of the plan or design for the construction of or an improvement to any highway as defined in such section or bridge, either in original construction or any improvement thereto, if the plan or design is approved in advance of the construction or improvement by the governing body of the political subdivision or some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval;
(12) Any claim arising out of the alleged insufficiency or want of repair of any highway as defined in such section, bridge, or other public thoroughfare. Insufficiency or want of repair shall be construed to refer to the general or overall condition and shall not refer to a spot or localized defect. A political subdivision shall be deemed to waive its immunity for a claim due to a spot or localized defect only if (a) the political subdivision has had actual or constructive notice of the defect within a reasonable time to allow repair prior to the incident giving rise to the claim or (b) the claim arose during the time specified in a notice provided by the political subdivision pursuant to subsection (3) of section 39-1359 and the state or political subdivision had actual or constructive notice; or
(13)(a) Any claim relating to recreational activities for which no fee is charged (i) resulting from the inherent risk of the recreational activity, (ii) arising out of a spot or localized defect of the premises unless the spot or localized defect is not corrected by the political subdivision leasing, owning, or in control of the premises within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice of the spot or localized defect, or (iii) arising out of the design of a skatepark or bicycle motocross park constructed for purposes of skateboarding, inline skating, bicycling, or scootering that was constructed or reconstructed, reasonably and in good faith, in accordance with generally recognized engineering or safety standards or design theories in existence at the time of the construction or reconstruction. For purposes of this subdivision, a political subdivision shall be charged with constructive notice only when the failure to discover the spot or localized defect of the premises is the result of gross negligence.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision:
(i) Recreational activities include, but are not limited to, whether as a participant or spectator: Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, walking, running, horseback riding, use of trails, nature study, waterskiing, winter sports, use of playground equipment, biking, roller blading, skateboarding, golfing, athletic contests; visiting, viewing, or enjoying entertainment events, festivals, or historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites; and similar leisure activities;
(ii) Inherent risk of recreational activities means those risks that are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or an integral part of the activity;
(iii) Gross negligence means the absence of even slight care in the performance of a duty involving an unreasonable risk of harm; and
(iv) Fee means a fee to participate in or be a spectator at a recreational activity. A fee shall include payment by the claimant to any person or organization other than the political subdivision only to the extent the political subdivision retains control over the premises or the activity. A fee shall not include payment of a fee or charge for parking or vehicle entry.
(c) This subdivision, and not subdivision (3) of this section, shall apply to any claim arising from the inspection or failure to make an inspection or negligent inspection of premises owned or leased by the political subdivision and used for recreational activities.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
109
cases (
36 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case:
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 38× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act expressly exempts certain types of tort claims from the limited waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Reiber v. Cnty. of Gage, 303 Neb. 325 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 14× “Following a bench trial solely on the issue of liability, the district court found that the defendants had exercised due care and that Reiber's action was barred by sovereign immunity under § 13-910(1). Reiber appeals from that judgment.”
Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 41× “If an exemption under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) applies, the political subdivision is immune from the claim and the proper remedy is to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Doe v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 727 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 18× “OPS moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under § 13-910. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
Stonacek v. City of Lincoln, 782 N.W.2d 900 (Neb. 2010).
· cites it 15× “The city argued, inter alia, that it was immune from suit based on exceptions to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 1997) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act) and that it did not owe appellees a duty under the flood plain management statutes, Neb.”
Rohde v. City of Ogallala, 731 N.W.2d 898 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 17× “The Keith County District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that the City had immunity from liability for damages under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (4) (Cum. Supp. 2002).”
McCormick v. City of Norfolk, 641 N.W.2d 638 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 14× “The court granted the City’s demurrer because it found that the City was immune from liability under the exception in § 13-910(9).”
Deezia v. City of Lincoln, 350 F. Supp. 3d 868 (D. Neb. 2018).
· cites it 9× “*886 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (7) (Westlaw 2018).”
Rutledge v. City of Kimball, 304 Neb. 593 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 16× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) sets forth specific claims that are exempt from the waiver of sovereign immunity, including any claim arising out of assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander,…”
McDonald v. DeCamp Legal Servs., P.C., 619 N.W.2d 583 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 11× “DeCamp Legal’s answer alleged that there was no agreement to represent McDonald on the tort claim; that McDonald would not have been able to recover from the College under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-910 (10) (Cum. Supp.”
Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 876 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 4× “The County and Dunning also raised various affirmative defenses, including: The deputies “acted reasonably and with due care,” Phillips’ claim was barred by § 13-910 of the PSTCA, and Phillips failed to state a claim.”
Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 16× “The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s waiver of immunity is subject to exemptions as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2022). 11.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(1) — 8 cases
Reiber v. Cnty. of Gage, 303 Neb. 325 (Neb. 2019).
“Following a bench trial solely on the issue of liability, the district court found that the defendants had exercised due care and that Reiber's action was barred by sovereign immunity under § 13-910(1). Reiber appeals from that judgment.”
Doe v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 727 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2007).
“OPS moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under § 13-910. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
Rohde v. City of Ogallala, 731 N.W.2d 898 (Neb. 2007).
“The Keith County District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that the City had immunity from liability for damages under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (4) (Cum. Supp. 2002).”
Stonacek v. City of Lincoln, 782 N.W.2d 900 (Neb. 2010).
“The city argued, inter alia, that it was immune from suit based on exceptions to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 1997) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act) and that it did not owe appellees a duty under the flood plain management statutes, Neb.”
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act expressly exempts certain types of tort claims from the limited waiver of sovereign immunity.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(10) — 6 cases
McDonald v. DeCamp Legal Servs., P.C., 619 N.W.2d 583 (Neb. 2000).
“DeCamp Legal’s answer alleged that there was no agreement to represent McDonald on the tort claim; that McDonald would not have been able to recover from the College under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-910 (10) (Cum. Supp.”
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act expressly exempts certain types of tort claims from the limited waiver of sovereign immunity.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(12) — 5 cases
Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 (Neb. 2024).
“The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s waiver of immunity is subject to exemptions as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2022). 11.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(12)(a) — 1 case
Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 (Neb. 2024).
“The Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s waiver of immunity is subject to exemptions as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2022). 11.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(13) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(13)(a) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(13)(a)(i) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(13)(b)(i) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(13)(b)(ii) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(2) — 31 cases
McCormick v. City of Norfolk, 641 N.W.2d 638 (Neb. 2002).
“The court granted the City’s demurrer because it found that the City was immune from liability under the exception in § 13-910(9).”
Doe v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 727 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2007).
“OPS moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under § 13-910. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(3) — 3 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(4) — 5 cases
Rohde v. City of Ogallala, 731 N.W.2d 898 (Neb. 2007).
“The Keith County District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that the City had immunity from liability for damages under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (4) (Cum. Supp. 2002).”
Stonacek v. City of Lincoln, 782 N.W.2d 900 (Neb. 2010).
“The city argued, inter alia, that it was immune from suit based on exceptions to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 1997) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act) and that it did not owe appellees a duty under the flood plain management statutes, Neb.”
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act expressly exempts certain types of tort claims from the limited waiver of sovereign immunity.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(5) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(7) — 36 cases
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act expressly exempts certain types of tort claims from the limited waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522 (Neb. 2022).
“If an exemption under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) applies, the political subdivision is immune from the claim and the proper remedy is to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Doe v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 727 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2007).
“OPS moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under § 13-910. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
Stonacek v. City of Lincoln, 782 N.W.2d 900 (Neb. 2010).
“The city argued, inter alia, that it was immune from suit based on exceptions to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 1997) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act) and that it did not owe appellees a duty under the flood plain management statutes, Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(8) — 2 cases
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty., 308 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2021).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 (Reissue 2012) of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act expressly exempts certain types of tort claims from the limited waiver of sovereign immunity.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910(9) — 4 cases
McCormick v. City of Norfolk, 641 N.W.2d 638 (Neb. 2002).
“The court granted the City’s demurrer because it found that the City was immune from liability under the exception in § 13-910(9).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.