Kathrynn Pals v. Tony Weekly, Jr., 12 F.4th 878

IHC contracted with Nebraska Dept. of Roads to repave I‑80; the Department designed a traffic‑control plan creating a two‑way, two‑lane head‑to‑head configuration; IHC subcontracted Sawyer to install/monitor temporary signs and devices and provide 24‑hour surveillance.
On July 31, 2016, traffic backed up in the head‑to‑head section for roughly half a mile; the Pals family vehicle stopped and was struck from behind by a semi driven by Tony Weekly, Jr., causing a fire that killed five family members.
Weekly was driving ~62 mph on cruise control, talking on his cellphone, and reached to place a soda in a cupholder; he failed to look and to brake in time; he was criminally convicted.
Plaintiffs (personal representatives) sued Weekly, his employer Bohren (later settled), and contractors IHC and Sawyer, alleging the contractors breached contractual duties to report weekend stoppages and seek/erect additional signage; plaintiffs said additional signage would have prevented the accident.
The district court granted summary judgment to IHC and Sawyer, concluding that—even assuming duty and breach—the negligent driving by Weekly was an efficient intervening cause that cut off the contractors’ liability.
Plaintiffs’ discovery/sanctions dispute (including sold employee laptops) did not persuade the court to stay or alter summary judgment because the court found the missing evidence could not change the objective foreseeability analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Weekly’s negligence was an efficient intervening cause (proximate cause/foreseeability)	Contractors’ failure to report backups and obtain/promote additional signage foreseeably led to the collision	Weekly’s extraordinary, distracted driving (cruise control, phone, reaching for soda) was unforeseeable and thus severs causal chain	Weekly’s negligence was an efficient intervening cause as a matter of law; summary judgment for IHC and Sawyer affirmed
Whether district court abused discretion by denying stay and refusing sanctions relief based on destroyed/sold laptops	Denial was prejudicial; plaintiffs needed laptop evidence to rebut foreseeability and supporting facts	Lost laptops would not alter the determinative, objective facts about Weekly’s conduct and foreseeability	No abuse of discretion; court reasonably concluded missing laptop evidence could not change intervening‑cause ruling

Heatherly v. Alexander, 421 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2005) (apply forum‑state law in diversity actions)
Wilke v. Woodhouse Ford Inc., 774 N.W.2d 370 (Neb. 2009) (elements of proximate cause and test for efficient intervening cause)
Latzel v. Bartek, 846 N.W.2d 153 (Neb. 2014) (explains foreseeability inquiry and when intervening cause severs liability)
Malolepszy v. State, 729 N.W.2d 669 (Neb. 2007) (construction‑zone signage; negligent driver’s unexpected conduct was an efficient intervening cause)
Zeller v. County of Howard, 419 N.W.2d 654 (Neb. 1988) (downed stop sign; driver’s willful disregard of obvious danger was unforeseeable)
Baumann v. Zhukov, 802 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2015) (foreseeability may be decided as a matter of law when reasonable minds cannot differ)
Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for discovery sanctions and related procedural rulings)