Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In
reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, an
appellate court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted,
giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences
deducible from the evidence.
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory
interpretation presents a question of law, for which an
appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent
conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court
Trial: Waiver: Appeal and Error. Failure to
make a timely objection waives the right to assert
prejudicial error on appeal.
Appeal and Error. When an issue is raised
for the first time in an appellate court, it will be
disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot commit error in
resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for
Trial: Waiver: Appeal and
Error. One may not waive an error, gamble on a
favorable result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result,
assert the previously waived error
Trial: Appeal and Error. An issue not
presented to or decided on by the trial court is not an
appropriate issue for consideration on appeal.
Negligence: Damages: Proximate Cause. In
order to prevail in a negligence action, a plaintiff must
establish the defendant's duty to protect the plaintiff
from injury, a failure to discharge that duty, and damages
proximately caused by the failure to discharge that duty.
Negligence: Proximate Cause: Words
and Phrases. The proximate cause of an injury is
that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, without any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the injury would not have occurred.
Neb. 579] Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County:
William B. Zastera and Stefanie A. Martinez, Judges.
Michael L. Storey and John M. Walker, of Lamson, Dugan &
Murray, L.L.P., for appellants.
Gregory C. Scaglione and John V. Matson, of Koley Jessen, PC,
L.L.O., for appellee E & A Consulting Group, Inc.
L. Friedrichsen and William M. Bradshaw, of Fitzgerald,
Schorr, Barmettler & Brennan, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee
City of La Vista.
A. Svoboda, of Gross & Welch, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee
Sanitary Improvement District No. 237.
Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg,
Ecker, Ruth Ecker, Jim Sledge, and Rosemary Sledge own homes
in La Vista, Nebraska. After those homes were flooded, they
brought suit against E & A Consulting Group, Inc.
(E&A), Sanitary Improvement District No. 237 (SID No.
237), the City of La Vista (City), and two other parties who
have since been dismissed with prejudice from this
litigation, alleging that the parties were negligent in
various ways, which led to the flood damages suffered. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of E&A,
SID No. 237, and the City. The Eckers and Sledges
(collectively the homeowners) appeal. We moved this case to
our docket, because it presents an issue of first impression
regarding revisions to the statute allowing motions for
summary judgment as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. §
25-1332 (Supp. 2017). We affirm.
Neb. 580] II. BACKGROUND
homeowners are neighbors residing in the Cimarron Woods area
of La Vista. Their homes are adjacent to each other, feature
walkout basements, and have backyards abutting Applewood
Creek. The Ecker home has a basement elevation of 1, 079.009
feet above sea level, ...