Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
295 Neb. 785
Neb.2017Background
- Plaintiff Dan Anderson, a Union Pacific control operator, sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act after his office chair collapsed on October 2, 2007, causing back injuries.
- Expert evidence at trial established the chair collapsed because a bolt failed; plaintiff’s expert said failure from repeated overloading, defendant’s expert attributed failure to manufacturer overtightening. The bolt defect was not visible on inspection.
- Anderson alleged specific negligence theories (unsafe workplace, failure to maintain/inspect/replace chairs, and failure to train employees) and, by amended complaint three months before trial, added a res ipsa loquitur claim.
- The district court admitted evidence of Anderson’s medical expenses but barred Union Pacific from showing amounts it had paid; the court instructed the jury on both ordinary negligence and res ipsa loquitur, allowing inconsistent findings.
- The jury found both that Anderson proved specific acts of negligence and that specific acts could not be proved, awarding $920,007 (including past medical expenses). The district court denied posttrial relief except for a setoff for amounts paid by Union Pacific.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court held the res ipsa loquitur instruction was legally improper given the pleaded specific acts and direct evidence of cause, found the instruction internally inconsistent and prejudicial, vacated the verdict, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitur could be submitted where plaintiff pleaded and presented proof of specific negligence | Anderson asserted res ipsa in addition to specific negligence, arguing facts supported the inference of negligence | Union Pacific argued res ipsa inapplicable because specific acts were alleged and expert evidence identified the precise cause (bolt failure) | Res ipsa inapplicable where specific acts are alleged or direct evidence of cause exists; instruction was reversible error |
| Whether jury instructions allowing findings both that specific negligence was proved and that it could not be proved were permissible | Anderson relied on district court formulation permitting alternate or cumulative findings | Union Pacific argued the instruction was contradictory and confusing, allowing inconsistent verdicts | Instruction was internally inconsistent, likely confused jury, and prejudicial; verdict vacated |
| Whether state procedural law governs FELA evidence doctrines like res ipsa | Anderson relied on state procedural practice to present res ipsa | Union Pacific accepted state procedural law but disputed application here | Res ipsa is a procedural evidentiary doctrine; Nebraska law governs its application in state court FELA actions |
| Whether error required new trial despite other unresolved posttrial issues (medical expense offset, preserved record) | Anderson sought to uphold verdict and setoff ruling | Union Pacific sought new trial based on instruction error and evidentiary rulings | Instructional error was dispositive and prejudicial; court reversed, vacated judgment, and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuhnel v. BNSF Railway Co., 287 Neb. 541 (state procedural rules apply in FELA cases; substantive FELA questions follow federal law)
- Swierczek v. Lynch, 237 Neb. 469 (res ipsa loquitur: facts may permit inference of negligence)
- McCall v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 184 Neb. 1 (definition and application of res ipsa loquitur)
- McLaughlin Freight Lines v. Gentrup, 281 Neb. 725 (res ipsa as exception to rule that negligence cannot be presumed)
- Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co., 266 Neb. 601 (res ipsa inapplicable where specific acts alleged/direct evidence of cause exists)
- Bargmann v. Soll Oil Co., 253 Neb. 1018 (pleading specific acts of negligence renders res ipsa inapplicable)
- Finley v. Brickman, 186 Neb. 747 (same principle: must prove specific alleged negligence if pleaded)
- Long v. Hacker, 246 Neb. 547 (res ipsa applicable only when plaintiff cannot allege/ prove particular negligent act)
- Facilities Cost Mgmt. Group v. Otoe Cty. Sch. Dist., 291 Neb. 642 (erroneous jury instruction requiring new trial when prejudicial)
- Gray v. Kenney, 290 Neb. 888 (appellate courts need only resolve issues necessary to adjudicate case)
- Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. Co., 135 F.2d 101 (res ipsa characterized as rule of evidence by federal courts)
- Weigand v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 267 F.2d 281 (federal authority treating res ipsa as an evidentiary rule)