Haumont v. City of Lincoln, 86-1096
| Decision Date | 24 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1096,86-1096 |
| Citation | 229 Neb. 52,424 N.W.2d 892 |
| Parties | David HAUMONT, Appellant, v. CITY OF LINCOLN, Nebraska, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Appeal and Error. In the absence of an assignment of error, the judgment will be affirmed, unless the court notes plain error on the record.
2. Workers' Compensation. The Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy by the employee against the employer for any injury arising out of and in the course of the employment.
Richard Scott, Lincoln, for appellant.
William F. Austin, Lincoln City Atty., and James D. Faimon, Lincoln, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of a tort action filed by appellant, David Haumont, against his employer, the City of Lincoln. The district court for Lancaster County sustained the City of Lincoln's demurrer to the petition, based on a finding that the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 48-101 to 48-1,110 (Reissue 1984 & Cum.Supp.1986), was Haumont's exclusive remedy. We hold that the district court's order was correct and affirm its decision.
Haumont's petition alleges that on January 15, 1985, while working as a public service officer for the Lincoln Police Department, he injured his lower back by lifting a parking meter coin container weighing 675 pounds. Haumont sued his employer, the City of Lincoln, for negligent design of the coin container.
Initially, we note that appellant's brief fails to set out any assignments of error. In the absence of an assignment of error, the judgment will be affirmed, unless the court notes plain error on the record. McCombs v. Prenosil, 226 Neb. 839, 415 N.W.2d 453 (1987).
In our review of the record for plain error, we note that appellant alleges that he was an employee of the City of Lincoln and was injured while carrying out his duties on the job.
This court has previously held that the Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy by the employee against the employer for any injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. P.A.M. v. Quad L. Assocs., 221 Neb. 642, 380 N.W.2d 243 (1986); Johnston v. State, 219 Neb. 457, 364 N.W.2d 1 (1985).
The district court correctly sustained appellee's demurrer and properly dismissed the cause of action.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millard v. Hyplains Dressed Beef, Inc.
...subject to the act." Marlow v. Maple Manor Apartments, 193 Neb. 654, 659, 228 N.W.2d 303, 306 (1975). See, also, Haumont v. City of Lincoln, 229 Neb. 52, 424 N.W.2d 892 (1988). "Whether an accident arises out of and in the course of the employment must be determined by the facts of each cas......
-
Abbott v. Gould, Inc.
...actions arising under the Workers' Compensation Act. Peak v. Bosse, 202 Neb. 1, 272 N.W.2d 750 (1978). See, also, Haumont v. City of Lincoln, 229 Neb. 52, 424 N.W.2d 892 (1988); P.A.M. v. Quad L. Assocs., 221 Neb. 642, 380 N.W.2d 243 (1986). Our question becomes, then, whether plaintiffs' p......