Latzel v. Bartek, 846 N.W.2d 153

Amanda Latzel, as guardian for Thomas Latzel, sued landowners Ronald and Doug Bartek and drivers Vanekelenburg and Gaughen for negligence after a 2007 intersection crash in Saunders County, Nebraska.
Corn was planted up to the ditch on Bartek land southwest of the unmarked intersection and had grown over 7 feet tall, obstructing views of the crossing.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowners, ruling the drivers’ conduct was an efficient intervening cause that severed causation from the landowners’ actions.
Amanda’s case against the drivers was consolidated with related actions; later, the Barteks’ motion for summary judgment was pursued, with evidence including photos, depositions, and expert affidavits.
The court acknowledged adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts framework in A.W. v. Lancaster County School District but proceeded to analyze causation under efficient intervening cause.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the drivers’ negligence was an efficient intervening cause; the landowners could not be held liable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the drivers’ negligence was an efficient intervening cause as a matter of law	Latzel: drivers’ disregard of visibility was foreseeable and landowners should be liable	Barteks: drivers’ failure to see was an unforeseeable intervening act breaking causal chain	Yes; drivers’ conduct was an efficient intervening cause, severing causation from landowners
Whether landowners owed a duty or breached under § 39-308 and Restatement Third framework	Latzel contends landowners had duty to remove obstruction and breached it	Barteks: no duty breach established; crop planting up to the ditch lawful	Court assumed duty and breach for analysis but affirmed based on efficient intervening cause, not breach

A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) duty framework; foreseeability in breach, not duty)
Willet v. County of Lancaster, 271 Neb. 570 (2006) (efficient intervening cause when driver disobeys stop sign and is unforeseeable)
Delaware v. Valls, 226 Neb. 140 (1987) (landowners not bound to anticipate driver’s obscured intersection entry)
Zeller v. County of Howard, 227 Neb. 667 (1988) (efficient intervening cause analysis in obstructed intersection cases)
Riggs v. Nickel, 281 Neb. 249 (2011) (foreseeability considerations in causation under Restatement Third)
Ginapp v. City of Bellevue, 282 Neb. 1027 (2012) ( Restatement Third considerations in negligence)
Deviney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 280 Neb. 450 (2010) (Restatement Third causation framework referenced)
Feloney v. Baye, 283 Neb. 972 (2012) (causation considerations related to foreseeability)