Pals v. Weekly, No. 20-2505 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Following the death of five members of the Pals family in a car accident in a construction zone after defendant drove his semi-truck into the back of the Pals' vehicle, plaintiffs filed a wrongful death and negligence action against defendant, his employer, and two contractors involved in the highway construction project, IHC and Sawyer.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of IHC and Sawyer, concluding that, even if IHC and Sawyer owed a duty to the Pals, and even if they breached that duty (questions the district court did not decide), the negligence claim against the two contractors would necessarily fail because defendant's negligence in causing the accident was an efficient intervening cause under Nebraska law. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to stay.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. Plaintiffs alleged that two contractor defendants failed to inform the defendant Interstate Highway Commission that backups were occurring in the construction site and that if they had make such reports, as required by their contacts for the project, additional signage would have been posted or an alternative traffic plan adopted, and the accident which killed their decedents would have been avoided; the district court did not err in concluding that even if the defendants owed a duty to the deceased and even if they breached it, the negligence claims against the contractors failed because the negligence of defendant Weekly, the truck driver who struck the deceased's vehicle, was an efficient underlying cause under Nebraska law; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to stay pending the filing and resolution of their fourth sanctions motion. [ September 10, 2021 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.