Factual Dispute Over “Offensive Contact” Under PSTCA Battery Exemption

Introduction

Scott v. Lancaster County School District 0001, decided by the Nebraska Supreme Court on March 28, 2025, addresses whether a public school district forfeits sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) when a student is injured by another student’s intentional, unconsented grabbing of an object in the first student’s hand. Erin-Ann Scott, mother and next friend of E.S. (the injured student), sued Lancaster County School District 0001 (Lincoln Public Schools) for negligence after a classmate yanked a pool noodle from E.S.’s hands during a physical‐education game, causing E.S. to fall and hit her head. Lancaster sought summary judgment based on sovereign‐immunity exemptions for intentional torts, specifically battery. The district court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the pool noodle constituted part of E.S.’s person and thus whether the contact was “offensive.” On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The PSTCA confers sovereign immunity on political subdivisions (including school districts) unless a statutory waiver applies. Exemptions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910 preserve immunity for certain categories of claims, including “claims arising out of battery” (section 13-910(7)).
The court held that whether an object held by a person is “part of the person” for battery purposes is an objective, reasonable‐person inquiry, and must be determined on the facts.
Because the parties disputed whether the pool noodle—supplied by the teacher and not personally owned by the injured student—was so intimately connected with her body as to render unconsented contact a battery, summary judgment was improper.
The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment, leaving the factual question for trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817, 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024): Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter.
MacFarlane v. Sarpy County School District 77-0037, 316 Neb. 705, 6 N.W.3d 527 (2024): Confirmed that public school districts qualify as political subdivisions under the PSTCA.
Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522, 973 N.W.2d 666 (2022): Defined battery as unconsented harmful contact with another’s person.
Bergman v. Anderson, 226 Neb. 333, 411 N.W.2d 336 (1987): Clarified that intent for battery requires only intent to make contact or to cause apprehension of contact, not intent to inflict the precise injury.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 18, comment c: Objects “so intimately connected” to one’s body may be regarded as part of the person.

Legal Reasoning

Jurisdiction and Appealability: Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1)(d), an order denying summary judgment based on sovereign immunity is final and appealable. The Court confirmed appellate jurisdiction despite the interlocutory posture.
PSTCA Exemption for Battery: Section 13-910(7) preserves immunity for claims “arising out of battery.” To invoke the exemption, the defendant must show (a) intentional, unconsented contact and (b) that the contact was with the plaintiff’s person.
Factual Element—“Part of the Person”: The Court held that determining whether an object is regarded as part of someone’s person is a question of fact. The standard is whether a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would view the unconsented contact with the object as offensive contact with the person.
Summary Judgment Standard: Because summary judgment requires that no genuine issue of material fact exist, and the student’s affidavit denied any belief that the pool noodle was part of her body, the district court correctly denied summary judgment.

Impact

Scott v. Lancaster County School District 0001 establishes that under Nebraska law:

When a PSTCA defendant claims sovereign immunity via the battery exemption, appellate courts must treat the “offensive contact” inquiry as fact-intensive.
Objects supplied by a third party and held temporarily may not be treated as part of the holder’s person as a matter of law.
Future battery cases under the PSTCA will turn on the reasonableness of treating the object in dispute as an extension of the body, ensuring that borderline scenarios go to a jury.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sovereign Immunity: Government entities (like school districts) are immune from lawsuits unless a law says otherwise.
Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA): A Nebraska statute that allows some lawsuits against political subdivisions but exempts certain claims, including those “arising out of battery.”
Battery: An intentional, unconsented harmful or offensive contact with someone’s person.
Offensive Contact: Contact that would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity, which may include touches to objects so closely connected to the person that they become part of the “person.”
Summary Judgment: A court decision without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about the key facts.

Conclusion

Scott v. Lancaster County School District 0001 clarifies that under the PSTCA battery exemption, whether an object held by a person is “part of the person” is a question for the fact finder, not the court on summary judgment. By affirming the denial of summary judgment, the Nebraska Supreme Court ensured that E.S.’s claim proceeds to trial on the factual question of whether the pool noodle’s unconsented grabbing constituted an offensive contact with her person. This decision reinforces the careful balance between sovereign immunity and legitimate claims for intentional torts, and it will guide courts in delineating the boundaries of “offensive contact” in future PSTCA battery cases.