Latzel v. Bartek

846 N.W.2d 153 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

An automobile accident that occurred at an unmarked intersection of County Road 17 and County Road T. Both County Road 17 and County Road T are gravel roads. Thomas (P) and two other people were passengers in a pickup truck driven and owned by Vanekelenburg (D). Vanekelenburg was driving his pickup truck eastbound on County Road T when it collided with another pickup truck driven and owned by Gaughen (D), who was traveling northbound on County Road 17. The land to the southwest of the intersection was owned by Ronald and Doug (Ds). They had planted corn to the southwest of the corner of the intersection up to the ditch that runs alongside the road. At the time of the accident, the corn had grown in excess of 7 feet tall. P suffered permanent traumatic injuries and he died 3 years later. P's wife, Amanda (P), filed this negligence action on behalf of herself and Thomas (P) against Ronald and Doug (Ds), Vanekelenburg (D), and Gaughen (D). P alleged that Ronald and Doug (D) were negligent by planting the corn too close to the roadside, choosing to plant corn near the southwest corner of the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road T rather than other crops less likely to obstruct motorists' vision, and failing to use reasonable and proper care in the maintenance of their land. P further alleged that Ronald and Doug (Ds) were negligent under §39-308: It shall be the duty of the owner of real property to remove from such property any tree, plant, shrub, or other obstruction, or part thereof, which, by obstructing the view of any driver, constitutes a traffic hazard. When the Department of Roads or any local authority determines upon the basis of engineering and traffic investigation that such a traffic hazard exists, it shall notify the owner and order that the hazard be removed within ten days. Failure of the owner to remove such traffic hazard within ten days shall constitute a Class V misdemeanor, and every day such owner fails to remove it shall be a separate offense. Ronald and Doug (Ds) filed a joint motion for summary judgment. Vanekelenburg (D) and Gaughen (D) stated that they were experienced, rural drivers. Vanekelenburg (D) testified that he had driven through unmarked intersections over the years and that when approaching such an intersection, he would slow down and look both ways before proceeding through the intersection. Vanekelenburg (D) further understood it was the responsibility of a driver to yield to a driver approaching on the right. Vanekelenburg (D) was eastbound on County Road T and Gaughen (D) was northbound on County Road 17, thus approaching on Vanekelenburg's (D) right. Gaughen (D) testified that he was familiar with the rule of the road that the driver on the left approaching an unmarked intersection is required to yield to the driver on the right. Vanekelenburg (D) testified that when he was approximately one-half mile away from the intersection, he was driving 15 to 20 miles per hour. As he approached the intersection, he was 'distracted,' because he was uncertain which direction he was supposed to go. Vanekelenburg (D) was pretty sure he came to a complete stop but he does not have any memories of what happened once he entered the intersection. Vanekelenburg (D) also stated that if the corn to the southwest of the corner of the intersection had been planted farther back from the intersection or if soybeans or alfalfa had been planted instead of corn, he would have had a better chance of seeing whether other vehicles were approaching the intersection. Gaughen (D) testified that he was traveling northbound on County Road 17, at approximately 46 to 47 miles per hour. Gaughen (D) stated that he was traveling 49 to 50 miles per hour. Gaughen (D) stated that once he saw Vanekelenburg's (D) vehicle as he approached the intersection, Gaughen (D) thought that Vanekelenburg (D) was going to stop, but then Gaughen (D) 'noticed nobody was even looking [his] way,' so Gaughen (D) applied his brakes and turned his vehicle to the right in an attempt to avoid the collision. Gaughen (D) testified that if the corn to the southwest of the corner of the intersection had been planted farther back from the intersection or if a crop that did not grow as high as the corn had been planted on the land, he would have had a better chance of seeing Vanekelenburg's (D) vehicle. Ronald (D) testified that he could anticipate that people would sometimes speed on gravel roads, and he agreed that 'not everybody drives like grandpa and grandma.' Doug (D) also testified that people may speed on roads that go by his property. Ronald nor Doug testified that they anticipated drivers would proceed through the intersection when they could not see other traffic. Ronald (D) testified that his corn would obstruct the view of the drivers. A traffic crash reconstructionist stated that the unharvested corn 'was a contributing factor in this crash and influenced the crash as a view obstruction.' He further stated that Vanekelenburg's (D) eastbound vehicle was traveling at approximately 15 miles per hour at the time of impact and that Gaughen's (D) northbound vehicle was traveling at approximately 44 miles per hour at the time of impact. Once Vanekelenburg's (D) vehicle was approximately 47 feet from the area of impact, it reached its point of no return or imminent impact, and that at that moment, 'the Gaughen (D) vehicle would have just started to enter Vanekelenburg's (D) available field of view, obstructed partially by the cornfield.' Once the Gaughen (D) vehicle was approximately 206 feet from the area of impact, it reached its point of no return or imminent impact, and at that moment, 'the Vanekelenburg (D) vehicle would have been out of view, completely obstructed by the cornfield.' A witness to the accident stated that the eastbound pickup truck on County Road T, Vanekelenburg's (D) vehicle, stopped at the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road T 'for quite a while.' He also stated that the northbound pickup truck on County Road 17, Gaughen's (D) vehicle, 'was driving over 65 miles per hour as he approached the intersection from the south' and that it 'was definitely substantially exceeding the speed limit.' The speed limit was 50 miles per hour. The district court filed an order granting summary judgment in favor of Ronald and Doug (D). For proximate cause, the district court reasoned that for intervening cause purposes, 'the negligence of a driver who disregards the obvious dangers of an obscured intersection is not foreseeable' as a matter of law. The district court also stated that it was undisputed that the drivers traversed the intersection when they could not see what they needed to see. The court determined that an efficient intervening cause existed due to the negligence of the drivers, Vanekelenburg (D) and Gaughen (D). It then determined that the landowners' conduct was not the proximate cause of the accident and Ronald and Doug (Ds) were not liable. P appealed.