Latzel v. Bartek

On October 6, 2007, a car driven by Patrick Gaughen (defendant) collided with a car driven by Daniel Vanekelenburg (defendant) at an intersection between two gravel roads. The land at the southwest corner of the intersection was owned by Ronald and Doug Bartek (defendant), who had planted corn up to the edge of the intersection, which had grown to over seven feet tall. Thomas Latzel, a passenger in Vanekelenburg’s car, was seriously injured in the accident. Amanda Latzel (plaintiff), Thomas’s wife, filed a negligence action in state court against Vanekelenburg, Gaughen, and the Barteks. With regard to the claims against the Barteks, Amanda argued that the Barteks were negligent by planting corn up to the edge of the intersection instead of shorter plants that were less likely to block the intersection. The Barteks filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the actions of Vanekelenburg and Gaughen were the proximate cause of Thomas’s injuries. The Barteks reasoned that Vanekelenburg’s and Gaughen’s negligent driving was an intervening act that broke the Barteks’ causal chain to Thomas’s injuries. The Barteks testified that they knew the corn would obstruct the views of drivers at the intersection, but that they did not anticipate that drivers would go through the intersection without stopping. The Barteks further testified that they had grown corn up to the edge of the intersection—a practice that was common in the area—for 35 years and that no other accidents had occurred at the intersection. The district court granted summary judgment for the Barteks. Amanda appealed.