## Facts

- Sharon Rawson drove west on Blondo Street in Omaha when her right front tire struck a large pothole, causing loss of control.
- Rawson’s vehicle crossed the centerline, struck a pickup truck, then collided head-on with another vehicle carrying multiple occupants.
- Rawson’s car came to rest about 270 feet from the pothole; her vehicle was a total loss.
- Third parties asserted property-damage and personal-injury claims against Rawson arising from the accident.
- Rawson settled all third-party claims for a total of $13,372.91.
- Rawson filed a written administrative claim against the City of Omaha under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act; the City did not respond, and Rawson withdrew the claim and sued.
- Rawson’s lawsuit asserted claims for (1) her vehicle loss, (2) contribution, and (3) indemnity.

## Issues

1. Whether a party found free from negligence who paid third-party claims caused solely by a city’s negligence may recover those payments from the city.
2. Whether the proper theory for recovery on these facts is contribution between joint tortfeasors or indemnity shifting the entire loss to the actual wrongdoer.
3. Whether the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act permits an indemnity-type recovery against a city when the city’s negligence is the sole cause of the accident and statutory claim procedures are followed.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions.
- The Court held that, given the trial court’s finding that the City’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident and Rawson was not negligent, Rawson could recover from the City the amounts she paid to the injured third parties.
- The Court rejected denial of recovery based solely on labeling the claim as “contribution,” treating the substance of Rawson’s claim as one for indemnity.

## Legal Principles

- Contribution generally requires common liability arising from some degree of concurrent fault; it presupposes joint liability to the injured person.
- Indemnity allows recovery by a party without fault who is compelled to pay damages that, in justice, should be paid by the party whose negligence actually caused the loss.
- Courts may look to the substance of the claim rather than the label used in pleadings when determining whether indemnity principles apply.
- Under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, a political subdivision may be liable for negligence in the same manner as a private person, including liability that supports indemnity when the subdivision’s negligence causes the claimant to incur third-party liability, if statutory procedures are satisfied.

## Conclusion

Because the City’s negligent street maintenance was found to be the sole cause of the accident and Rawson was faultless yet paid the resulting third-party claims, Rawson was entitled to shift those payments to the City under indemnity principles, and the denial of recovery based on a strict contribution analysis was reversible error.


Rawson v. City of Omaha, 212 Neb. 159 (1982)