## Facts

- A fatal two-vehicle collision occurred on October 6, 2007, at an uncontrolled, unmarked rural intersection of two gravel county roads in Lancaster County, Nebraska.
- Thomas Latzel was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Daniel Vanekelenburg and died from injuries sustained in the collision with a vehicle driven by Patrick Gaughen.
- Ronald and Doug Bartek owned farmland at the southwest corner of the intersection and planted corn near the roads; the corn grew to over 7 feet and, according to the plaintiff’s evidence, obstructed sight lines.
- Amanda Latzel, as personal representative of Thomas Latzel’s estate and individually, sued the drivers and the Barteks for negligence, alleging the Barteks planted corn too close to the roadside and allowed it to obstruct visibility at the intersection.
- The Barteks acknowledged they knew the corn would limit visibility but testified they did not anticipate drivers would enter the intersection without adequate caution; they also cited approximately 35 years of similar planting at that location without prior accidents and asserted the practice was common locally.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Barteks, ruling the drivers’ negligence was an intervening cause as a matter of law; the plaintiff appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the drivers’ negligent operation of their vehicles at an uncontrolled intersection constituted an efficient intervening cause as a matter of law, severing any causal connection between the landowners’ alleged sight obstruction and the collision.
2. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause existed that should have precluded summary judgment for the landowners.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Barteks.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that planting tall corn near the intersection could be negligent, but held the drivers’ negligence was an efficient intervening cause that superseded any landowner negligence.
- The court concluded the drivers’ conduct was the immediate, legally operative cause of the collision, severing proximate causation as to the landowners.
- The court held no genuine issue of material fact existed on proximate cause because reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and admissible evidence show no genuine issue of material fact (or ultimate inferences) and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages; proximate cause is required to impose liability even if duty and breach are assumed.
- An efficient intervening cause is a new, independent act that intervenes in the sequence of events, becomes a proximate cause of the injury, and breaks the causal connection to the original actor’s alleged negligence; intervening negligence may supersede when it is not reasonably foreseeable.
- Motorists approaching intersections—especially with limited visibility—must keep a proper lookout and operate with reasonable care; driver negligence can constitute a superseding cause barring liability of other actors whose conduct merely created a condition.

## Conclusion

The court held that the drivers’ negligent entry into an uncontrolled rural intersection was an efficient intervening cause that, as a matter of law, superseded any alleged negligence by adjacent landowners for planting corn that reduced visibility; because proximate causation failed and no material fact dispute existed on that point, summary judgment for the landowners was affirmed.


Latzel v. Bartek, 846 N.W.2d 153 (Neb. 2014)