Latzel v. Bartek
___ N.W.2d ___ (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of efficient intervening cause severs a defendant's liability in a negligence action if a third party's new, independent, and unforeseeable negligent conduct, over which they had full control, directly results in the injury, even if the defendant's conduct contributed to a hazardous condition.
Facts:
- On October 6, 2007, an automobile accident occurred at the unmarked intersection of County Road 17 and County Road T in Saunders County, Nebraska.
- Thomas Latzel was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by Daniel Vanekelenburg, which collided with another pickup truck driven by Patrick Gaughen.
- Ronald Bartek and Doug Bartek owned the land to the southwest of the intersection, where they had planted corn up to the ditch alongside the road.
- At the time of the accident, the corn grown by the Barteks exceeded 7 feet in height and obstructed the view of the intersection.
- Thomas Latzel suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of the accident, which ultimately led to his death three years later.
- Both Daniel Vanekelenburg and Patrick Gaughen were experienced rural drivers familiar with the rules for approaching unmarked intersections and yielding right-of-way.
- Vanekelenburg testified he was distracted, driving 15-20 mph, and was unsure if he came to a full stop before the intersection.
- Gaughen testified he was traveling 46-47 mph (or 49-50 mph by interrogatory) and saw Vanekelenburg's vehicle but noticed no one looking his way before attempting to avoid collision.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 4, 2009, Amanda Latzel filed a negligence action on behalf of herself and Thomas Latzel against Ronald Bartek, Doug Bartek, Daniel Vanekelenburg, and Patrick Gaughen in the district court for Lancaster County.
- On June 30, 2010, the district court consolidated Amanda Latzel's case with another lawsuit brought against the drivers by the estate of a different passenger.
- On August 5, 2010, Ronald Bartek and Doug Bartek filed a joint motion for summary judgment.
- A hearing on the joint motion for summary judgment was held on October 12, 2010.
- On January 18, 2011, the district court filed an order granting summary judgment in favor of Ronald Bartek and Doug Bartek, finding the drivers' negligence was an intervening cause.
- On January 31, 2011, Amanda Latzel's motion to alter or amend the judgment, or in the alternative, for certification of final judgment regarding the claims against Ronald and Doug Bartek, was overruled by the district court.
- On November 9, 2011, Amanda Latzel settled with Gaughen, and Gaughen was dismissed from the case by stipulation of the parties.
- On January 26, 2012, Amanda Latzel filed an amended complaint, adding the State of Nebraska, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as a defendant to resolve an interest in settlement proceeds.
- On December 5, 2012, the district court filed an order resolving the dispute between DHHS and Amanda Latzel over the settlement proceeds.
- On January 14, 2013, the remaining claim against Vanekelenburg was dismissed with prejudice, resolving all claims in the district court.
- Amanda Latzel appealed from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the landowners, Ronald and Doug Bartek, to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the negligence of drivers who disregard the obvious dangers of a visually obstructed intersection constitute an efficient intervening cause as a matter of law, thereby severing the causal connection between a landowner's alleged negligence (due to crop obstruction) and a passenger's injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller-Lerman
Yes, the negligence of the drivers, Daniel Vanekelenburg and Patrick Gaughen, constituted an efficient intervening cause, severing the causal connection between the landowners’ conduct and Thomas Latzel’s injuries. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, assuming for argument that the landowners owed and breached a duty. The court focused on proximate causation, emphasizing that an efficient intervening cause severs the causal connection if the third party's negligent actions intervene, the third party had full control of the situation, the third party's negligence could not have been anticipated by the defendant, and the third party's negligence directly resulted in the injury. Citing prior Nebraska cases, the court reiterated that a driver's negligence in proceeding through an obviously obstructed intersection without sufficient vision is not foreseeable as a matter of law. While A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001 established that foreseeability is generally a question of fact, the court clarified that it can still be determined as a matter of law where reasonable minds could not differ. The drivers had complete control and could have avoided the collision by exercising reasonable care. The landowners were not bound to anticipate drivers disregarding the obvious danger of traversing a visually obstructed unmarked intersection. The court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) 'scope-of-risk' analysis for this case due to the district court's lack of specific findings on breach and the risks that made the landowners' conduct tortious.
Concurring - Justice Stephan
While agreeing that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed, Justice Stephan concluded as a matter of law that there was no breach of duty, and thus no negligence, on the part of the landowners. He argued that under A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, foreseeability is an element in determining breach, not the existence of a legal duty. He contended that planting corn up to the ditch, which was a normal agricultural practice, did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of a traffic accident. Furthermore, he noted that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-308, which concerns removing traffic hazards, entrusts the determination of a 'traffic hazard' to state and local officials, and there was no evidence the Barteks were ever notified that their corn was deemed a hazard. Although the Barteks acknowledged their corn obstructed views and that motorists might speed, Justice Stephan asserted this general knowledge did not make a specific traffic accident reasonably foreseeable, especially given the established precedent that a motorist's negligence in disregarding an obvious danger at an obstructed intersection is not reasonably foreseeable. He concluded that the Barteks were not negligent in planting their corn, providing a different basis for affirming the summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces Nebraska's long-standing 'efficient intervening cause' doctrine within negligence law, particularly in the context of landowner liability for visual obstructions. It clarifies that while A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001 moved foreseeability to a factual determination for breach, courts retain the ability to rule on foreseeability as a matter of law when reasonable minds cannot differ, thus allowing for summary judgment in appropriate cases. The decision sets a high bar for establishing proximate causation against landowners when highly negligent third-party drivers had full control and disregarded obvious dangers. It also signals the court's cautious approach to fully adopting new legal frameworks, such as the Restatement (Third)'s 'scope-of-risk' analysis, without sufficient foundational findings from lower courts.
