Lincoln council upholds denial of resident’s $repair claim after crash involving city fire engine

The Lincoln City Council voted to leave a citizen claim denied after hearing testimony and lengthy council debate over a November 4 traffic incident in which a city fire engine moved into another lane, and resident Dean Forgy’s vehicle struck a curb and required repairs.

The council’s decision keeps in place a recommendation from City Law that the city is not liable because the evidence does not show negligence by the fire engine driver. A motion to remove Forgy’s claim from denial failed on a 2-5 roll call; the council then approved the claims report that retains the denial (main motion carried 6-1).

The issue mattered because councilors and the claimant disputed whether the city driver’s actions—described in the city’s accident report as sliding in wet conditions and moving into another lane—amounted to legal negligence under Nebraska law. Forgy told the council he was forced onto the curb to avoid colliding with the fire engine and presented edited crash diagrams and the repair receipt.

“I think I’ve demonstrated sufficient evidence that the city driver was negligent in this case and that the city is liable for the damage to my van,” Forgy said during public comment, describing the sequence when the fire engine entered his lane, his subsequent evasive action, and damage to the driver-side tire and rim.

Assistant City Attorney Lily Lee summarized the legal review for council, saying the city’s incident reports show the engine moved into another lane after braking and sliding on wet pavement but that the records do not establish negligence. “I do not think that that shows negligence on the part of the fire driver,” Lee said, adding that the fire engine’s report and the Lincoln Police Department crash report were completed on the day of the incident.

Council debate focused on whether the stopping of a vehicle ahead of the fire engine (referred to in the record as vehicle 2) or the fire engine’s inability to stop in wet conditions was the proximate cause. Councilman Bowers moved to remove the claim from denial, arguing Forgy had been placed in a “no-win situation” and that the city could pursue recovery from the other motorist if appropriate. Council members Duda and Powers voted to remove; the motion failed when the majority declined to overturn City Law’s recommendation.

City Attorney Christy noted the council’s role is not to find legal fault but to review the recommendation and apply consistent standards. Council members who opposed removing the denial emphasized the city’s obligation to apply the same negligence standard consistently and the lack of clear evidence in the record that the driver was negligent.

The claimant said the crash report and edited diagrams—prepared after the city attorney’s denial letter—show the fire engine moved partially into his lane without lights or signals and that his evasive action prevented a more serious collision. Councilors asked for and reviewed police and city accident reports during the hearing; city staff said the city vehicle report is not public record but the police crash report is.

Action taken: the council declined to move Forgy’s claim from denial (motion to remove denied on a 2-5 roll call). The subsequent main motion to accept the claims report (which kept the denial in place) passed 6-1.

The council did not direct staff to reopen investigation or seek third-party recovery; the record shows no formal direction or assignment for follow-up other than the public discussion and the votes recorded.

Forgy asked the council to approve his repair claim; the council left the claim denied per City Law’s recommendation.

The council’s decision rests on the local application of Nebraska’s negligence standard as reflected in the State Tort Claims Act and the city legal review; councilors who voted to sustain the denial said the evidence as presented did not meet the negligence threshold required for city liability.