Judiciary Committee
February 5, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Senator Carolyn Bosn | Bills Heard: 6 | Full Transcript (PDF)
Gubernatorial Appointment: Confirmation of Jeff Bucher to Nebraska Board of Parole
Introduced by: Sen. Governor Pillen | Testimony: 0 proponents, 0 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Judiciary Committee confirms parole board nominee with law enforcement background. Jeff Bucher, a 34-year Lincoln Police Department veteran who rose to captain, appeared before the committee seeking confirmation to the Nebraska Board of Parole. Bucher emphasized his commitment to balancing public safety with rehabilitation and pledged reliable attendance at parole hearings—addressing a past issue with board members' attendance. Why it matters: The parole board makes critical decisions affecting public safety and offender reintegration. Bucher's law enforcement background and stated philosophy of leaving people "in a better place" signal a focus on both accountability and rehabilitation. What they're saying: Sen. McKinney pressed Bucher on ensuring balanced decisions that don't favor either public safety or rehabilitation exclusively. Bucher responded that he would evaluate cases individually, considering behavior while incarcerated, program completion, and realistic parole plans. He acknowledged frustration with parolees returning due to violations and cited the need for better communication about responsibilities. What's next: No vote was taken during the hearing; the appointment moves forward in the confirmation process.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. McKinney, Sen. Hallstrom, Sen. Rountree
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB132: Seatbelt Evidence in Civil Proceedings
Introduced by: Sen. Senator Kathleen Kauth | Testimony: 4 proponents, 1 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Nebraska bill would allow seatbelt evidence in civil trials after 40 years of prohibition. LB132 would eliminate a statute dating to 1985 that bars evidence of seatbelt non-use in civil proceedings, allowing judges and juries to consider whether plaintiffs wore seatbelts when determining damages. The bill moves beyond the current 5% cap on mitigation. Why it matters: Nebraska's seatbelt use has dropped to 77%, down from 87% in 2017, despite data showing seatbelts reduce death risk by 45% and serious injury by 50%. Allowing evidence of non-use could incentivize compliance and provide transparency in damage calculations, though it raises constitutional questions about jury authority. What they're saying: Proponents argue the 5% cap is arbitrary and doesn't reflect actual injury reduction. Bob Lannin, a defense attorney, described cases where the cap produced unjust results—a quadriplegic passenger ejected from a vehicle could only recover 5% mitigation despite seatbelt use likely preventing ejection. Opponents, led by the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, warn the bill could create a new duty of care and allow seatbelt non-use to bar recovery entirely if a jury finds it 50% responsible for injuries. What's next: No vote was taken. Sen. DeBoer suggested a possible amendment limiting seatbelt evidence to damages and mitigation only, excluding liability questions.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Hallstrom, Sen. Storer Skeptical: Sen. McKinney, Sen. DeBoer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB199: Statute of Limitations and Litigation Financing Disclosure
Introduced by: Sen. Senator Tony Sorrentino | Testimony: 4 proponents, 5 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Nebraska bill would shorten personal injury statute of limitations and require litigation financing disclosure. LB199 proposes two major changes: reducing the statute of limitations for personal injury actions from four years to two years, and requiring disclosure of non-recourse civil litigation financing agreements. The bill aims to preserve evidence while promoting transparency about third-party funding. Why it matters: Nebraska's four-year statute is longer than 44 states. Proponents argue a two-year deadline encourages timely filing while evidence is fresh and prevents defendants from facing stale claims. However, opponents worry the shorter timeline will force premature litigation and harm plaintiffs still in rehabilitation. The litigation financing disclosure provision addresses a multi-billion dollar industry that has grown explosively but remains largely unregulated. What they're saying: Proponents cite data showing 91% of cases are filed within two years anyway. Opponents, including injured parties and their families, testified that a two-year statute would have prevented settlements in their cases. Rachel Suhr explained her sister's traumatic brain injury case required time to negotiate a fair settlement; a two-year deadline would have forced premature litigation. Eric Schuller, representing the consumer legal funding industry, opposed automatic disclosure, arguing for an 'upon request' standard instead. What's next: No vote was taken. An amendment may be considered to change the disclosure requirement from automatic to 'upon request' within 30 days.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Storer Skeptical: Sen. McKinney, Sen. DeBoer, Sen. Rountree
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB341: Statutory Thresholds for Settlements Involving Minors
Introduced by: Sen. Senator Bob Hallstrom | Testimony: 3 proponents, 0 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Judiciary Committee hears bill streamlining minor settlement process. LB341 would allow minors receiving settlements of $40,000 or less to receive funds without court-ordered guardianship, provided certain protections are met. The bill adopts a model from the National Council of Insurance Legislators and has been passed in five surrounding states. Why it matters: Current Nebraska law requires court approval for all minor settlements, creating unnecessary delays and judicial burden for small claims. The bill streamlines the process while maintaining protections through the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, saving families time and money. What they're saying: Proponents, including insurance companies and attorneys from both sides, praised the bill as a balanced solution. Michael Leahy noted that parents currently cannot give effective releases in small settlements, creating a persistent problem. Sen. McKinney raised concerns about parents without legal representation agreeing to unfair settlements, but proponents noted the good-faith requirement and protections built into the bill. What's next: No vote was taken. The committee heard testimony supporting the bill with an amendment raising the threshold from $35,000 to $40,000.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Rountree Skeptical: Sen. McKinney
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB79: Admission Rule for Commercial Motor Vehicle Cases
Introduced by: Sen. Senator Bob Hallstrom | Testimony: 3 proponents, 4 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Bill would bar direct negligence claims against employers once vicarious liability is admitted. LB79 codifies the admission rule (McHaffie rule) for commercial motor vehicle cases. Once an employer admits vicarious liability for an employee's negligence, claims of direct negligence—such as negligent hiring, training, or supervision—would be barred. The rule aims to prevent redundant claims and inflammatory evidence. Why it matters: Proponents argue the rule simplifies trials and prevents juries from hearing irrelevant evidence designed to punish employers. Opponents warn it eliminates accountability for motor carriers' own negligent conduct and allows companies to hide systemic safety problems. The rule has been adopted in Iowa and 14 other states. What they're saying: Marvin Dikeman, a Georgia-based defense attorney, warned that without the rule, plaintiffs file multiple claims to 'anchor' high damage numbers, leading to multi-million dollar verdicts. Maren Chaloupka, representing families of two young people killed by a truck driver, argued the rule would have prevented them from discovering and forcing changes to the company's lax hiring practices. Tressa Nelson, whose daughter was killed, testified the rule would allow motor carriers to budget for predictable deaths. What's next: No vote was taken. Sen. McKinney and Sen. DeBoer raised concerns about whether the bill adequately addresses accountability for company negligence.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. McKinney, Sen. DeBoer, Sen. Rountree
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB205: Noneconomic Damages Cap and Medical Bill Provisions
Introduced by: Sen. Senator Carolyn Bosn | Testimony: 3 proponents, 11 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Judiciary Committee hears emotional testimony on bill capping pain and suffering damages at $1 million. LB205 would cap noneconomic damages at $1 million for personal injury accidents involving commercial motor vehicles and require evidence of actual paid medical costs rather than billed amounts. The bill aims to prevent nuclear verdicts while maintaining full recovery for economic damages. Why it matters: About 1 in 4 auto accident trials involving trucking companies result in verdicts over $10 million nationally. Nebraska has not experienced such verdicts, but proponents argue the state must be proactive. However, opponents argue the cap violates the Seventh Amendment and is inadequate for catastrophic injuries. What they're saying: Injured parties testified about the inadequacy of $1 million for lifelong suffering. Zachariah Harger, paralyzed by a drunk driver, described losing his job and ability to play sports with his son. Ace Schlund, hit by a tanker truck, questioned whether $1 million is adequate for 40+ years of constant pain. Tressa Nelson, whose daughter was killed by a truck driver, argued the cap would allow motor carriers to budget for predictable deaths. Robert Keith, a former insurance defense attorney, testified he never paid a settlement over $1 million he didn't think was warranted, suggesting Nebraska juries already cap verdicts. What's next: No vote was taken. Sen. Bosn indicated the committee should discuss what an appropriate cap might be, if any.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Hallstrom Skeptical: Sen. McKinney, Sen. DeBoer, Sen. Rountree, Sen. Storer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
The Judiciary Committee held an extended hearing on February 5, 2025, lasting until approximately 8:55 p.m. The committee heard testimony on six bills and one gubernatorial appointment. Committee Chair Bosn noted at the beginning that committee members may come and go during the hearing due to other legislative commitments. The hearing included extensive testimony from injured parties and their families, particularly on LB205, which generated significant emotional testimony about the adequacy of damage caps. Several bills (LB132, LB199, LB79, LB205) did not receive votes during the hearing, with Chair Bosn indicating ongoing conversations with committee members about potential amendments and modifications.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.