Sundermann v. Hy-Vee, 929 N.W.2d 919

Sundermann was struck and seriously injured by a Hy-Vee employee’s pickup while using an on-site air compressor parked along the drive aisle of a Hy‑Vee convenience store property. The driver (Swanson) admitted fault and his insurer settled with Sundermann.
The air compressor was located north of the store such that patrons commonly parked along the south curb of the northern access drive to use it; there were right‑angle parking spaces immediately north of that drive used by customers and employees.
Sundermann presented testimony and an expert (Robison) that the compressor’s placement encouraged patrons to block the drive aisle, creating a foreseeable hazard; Hy‑Vee’s witnesses (including its expert Stigge and site planner Stein) testified the layout complied with codes and the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.
Hy‑Vee moved for summary judgment; the district court found Hy‑Vee owed a duty but, as a matter of law, did not breach that duty because the specific accident (driver hitting accelerator by mistake and striking a person using the compressor) was not reasonably foreseeable, and granted summary judgment.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment record, concluded genuine factual disputes existed about foreseeability, breach, and causation, reversed the district court, and remanded for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hy‑Vee breached its duty by locating the air compressor where patrons would block the drive aisle	Placement foreseeably caused patrons to park in the drive aisle and created an unsafe condition; expert said proper design would have prevented the accident	The accident (a driver pressing the wrong pedal and striking a patron) was an unforeseeable, isolated event; layout complied with codes	Reversed: a reasonable jury could find it foreseeable that patrons would park in the drive aisle and that vehicles could back into them, so breach is a question for the factfinder
Whether Hy‑Vee’s site design was a proximate cause of Sundermann’s injuries	Design that encouraged patrons to block a drive aisle proximately caused the collision and injury	The immediate cause was the driver’s inadvertent accelerator application, not the site design	Reversed in part: material factual disputes about causation exist and must be decided at trial
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Evidence (employee testimony, expert opinion, planner admission) created genuine issues of material fact	Hy‑Vee met its burden because the particular accident was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law	Reversed: summary judgment improper because reasonable minds could differ on foreseeability, breach, and causation

Ray Anderson, Inc. v. Buck’s, Inc., 300 Neb. 434 (summary judgment standard and appellate review)
Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 296 Neb. 726 (burden-shifting on summary judgment and foreseeability may be decided as a matter of law in some cases)
Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (summary judgment standards and inferences for the nonmoving party)
Lewison v. Renner, 298 Neb. 654 (elements of negligence claim: duty, breach, causation, damages)
A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (duty analysis, foreseeability as fact question generally for the jury)