Porter v. Knife River, Inc., 310 Neb. 946

Background

Officer Curtis Blackbird died when his cruiser struck a 50-ton crane parked in the westbound lane of Highway 94 during an NDOT-designated closure while he was responding to an emergency call.
The closure was a “hard closure”; evidence showed nine barricades and five signs at the closure termini and that the NDOT-approved traffic control plan (compliant with the MUTCD) was in place.
The crane was owned/operated by a subcontractor (A.M. Cohron & Son); Knife River was general contractor; other subcontractors handled paving and traffic control.
The Administrator sued the contractors for negligence, alleging inadequate illumination, barricading, and other traffic controls inside the closed zone.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, producing evidence of compliance with the NDOT traffic control plan and MUTCD; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the contractors met the statutory and common‑law standard of care and that no triable issue remained.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did contractors breach a duty by parking the crane and failing to provide adequate barricades/illumination?	Contractors failed to adequately illuminate/mark the hazard inside the closed zone, causing Blackbird's death.	Contractors implemented the NDOT‑approved traffic control plan and MUTCD‑compliant devices; barricades at both ends were suitable.	No breach shown; devices were suitable and defendants exercised ordinary care; summary judgment affirmed.
Does Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39‑1345 limit/define contractors’ duty and standard of care?	§ 39‑1345 does not preclude additional duties; contractors still must warn of internal hazards.	§ 39‑1345 requires suitable barricades/signs at both ends and notifies trespassers they enter at their own peril; it informs the standard of care.	§ 39‑1345 sets the relevant warning duty/standard; defendants complied with it.
Were contractors required to place intermediate signals/markers for hazards within the closed area?	More robust or intermediate devices could have marked the crane/hazard.	Precedent and the MUTCD do not require intermediate signals where termini warnings and visible road condition exist.	Contractors not required to place intermediate signals; no triable issue.
Did plaintiff’s evidence create a triable issue of proximate cause or negate assumption of risk/contributory negligence?	The absence of additional warnings was the proximate cause; factual disputes exist.	Blackbird entered a closed highway without permission (peril warned by signs/barricades); assumption of risk/contributory negligence apply.	Even under favorable inferences, no material factual dispute on breach/causation; summary judgment stands.

Key Cases Cited

In re Estate of Lakin, 965 N.W.2d 365 (summary judgment standard)
Wintroub v. Nationstar Mortgage, 927 N.W.2d 19 (appellate view and summary judgment principles)
Williamson v. Bellevue Med. Ctr., 934 N.W.2d 186 (purpose of summary judgment to pierce pleadings)
Lewison v. Renner, 905 N.W.2d 540 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust, 961 N.W.2d 807 (statutory interpretation principles)
Yagodinski v. Sutton, 959 N.W.2d 541 (giving effect to all parts of a statute)
Murray v. UNMC Physicians, 806 N.W.2d 118 (statutes/regulations as evidence of standard of care)
Lyon v. Paulsen Building & Supply, 160 N.W.2d 191 (contractor not required to place intermediate signals when termini warnings suffice)
Gorges v. Dobson Bros. Constr. Co., 187 N.W.2d 91 (barricades at termini need not absolutely prevent entrance)