Gonzalez v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 292 Neb. 281

13-year-old Efrain Ramos-Domingo was struck and killed while crossing the second of two parallel tracks at a Schuyler, Nebraska crossing after an eastbound train had just passed; a westbound Union Pacific train hit him.
Crossing had functioning gates, lights, and signals; evidence showed the eastbound train blocked the view of the westbound train until moments before impact.
Union Pacific presented crew testimony and records indicating horns and signals were operating; plaintiff’s expert concluded the westbound horn sounded for 12 seconds but stopped for the final 3 seconds before the collision, contrary to a 15-second sequence required by regulations and railroad rules.
The district court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific, finding no breach of care by the railroad and that Efrain’s maneuvering around a lowered gate and failure to look/listen constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding genuine factual disputes exist as to (1) whether Union Pacific failed to provide required audible warnings and (2) whether Efrain’s negligence equaled or exceeded the railroad’s—questions for the jury under comparative negligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Union Pacific breach its duty by failing to warn (horn) sufficiently?	Railroad failed to sound horn for final 3 seconds and did not comply with 15‑second/sequence requirements, creating a dangerous, obscured crossing.	Horn, gates, and lights were operating properly; crew testimony supports adequate warnings.	Reversed: disputed facts on horn timing/sequencing create a triable issue on breach.
Was Efrain contributorily negligent as a matter of law such that recovery is barred?	Even if Efrain disobeyed gate, railroad negligence could be a proximate cause; reasonable minds could apportion fault under comparative negligence.	Efrain willfully went under a closed gate, had visual and audible opportunity (at least ~3 seconds) to see/hear the train, so his negligence equals/exceeds railroad’s—summary judgment appropriate.	Reversed: jury must decide apportionment; summary judgment improper because reasonable inferences favoring plaintiff show Efrain’s negligence might be less than 50%.
Standard for awarding summary judgment in comparative‑negligence cases	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court restated: defendant must prove plaintiff’s contributory negligence ≥ total negligence of all defendants to obtain judgment under Nebraska’s comparative negligence statute.

DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 290 Neb. 286 (summary judgment reviewed by viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Dresser v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 282 Neb. 537 (duty to look and listen at railroad crossings; review standards)
Fickle v. State, 273 Neb. 990 (defendant bears burden to show plaintiff's contributory negligence equals or exceeds total negligence)
Traphagan v. Mid‑America Traffic Marking, 251 Neb. 143 (apportionment of fault must go to jury when reasonable minds could differ)
Humphrey v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 251 Neb. 736 (when contributory negligence of a child can be decided as matter of law)
Wyatt v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 209 Neb. 212 (duty to look and listen; exceptions when traveler recklessly fails to do so)
Crewdson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 234 Neb. 631 (visibility obstructions and the traveler’s duty to look and listen)