This case involves a wrongful death action against the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT). The decedent was killed by a train at a railroad crossing. Prior to the accident, the DOT had removed rumble strips and replaced them with a flashing light placed on top of a stop sign that was at an intersection south of the railroad crossing. However, the light was not working on the night of the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State on the basis that the lack of rumble strips or a functioning flashing light were not a proximate cause of the accident. Indeed, the court not only didn’t let the jury decide the proximate cause issue, it stated that “there was no evidence that either device was installed for the purpose of warning motorists about trains.” That seems a bit incredible. For what reason, other than to warn motorists about trains, would such devices be installed? The estate appealed. However, the appellate court affirmed on the basis that the estate couldn’t show that the State’s negligence was a “substantial factor in bringing about the harm.” The court noted that signs beginning 900 feet before the stop sign warned of the stop sign, and additional signage warned of the railroad crossing. As such, the court reasoned that the accident was not a foreseeable consequence of the State’s failure to maintain a properly functioning light and rumble strips closer to the railroad crossing. Askvig v. Iowa, No. 6-925/06-0370, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 191 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2007).