Kuhnel v. BNSF Railway Co.
287 Neb. 541
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Edwin H. Kuhnel, a BNSF employee, sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claiming injury from recoupling activities and alleging BNSF failed to provide a reasonably safe place to work.
- At trial both parties submitted proposed jury instructions; the district court rejected them and issued its own instructions that did not explicitly state the employer’s FELA duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace.
- The court’s instructions identified as a claimed negligence theory BNSF’s "failing to provide Kuhnel with a reasonably safe place to work" and required the jury to find negligence by the greater weight of the evidence.
- Kuhnel did not object at trial that the court failed to instruct explicitly on the employer’s duty; after a general verdict for BNSF he moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals found plain error in the instructions (concluding the jury was left to decide whether a duty existed) and reversed for a new trial; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held the instructions, viewed as a whole, implicitly conveyed BNSF’s FELA duty and did not amount to plain error, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must give a separate jury instruction stating employer’s FELA duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work | Kuhnel argued jury should be instructed explicitly on the employer’s duty | BNSF argued no separate/explicit instruction was required if substance conveyed | Court: No requirement for a separate instruction; substance sufficed |
| Whether the district court’s instructions constituted plain error for failing to explicitly state the FELA duty | Kuhnel argued omission was plain error that prejudiced his right and warranted reversal | BNSF argued instructions, taken together, conveyed the duty and did not produce plain error | Court: Not plain error—the instructions implicitly recognized the duty and did not cause a miscarriage of justice |
| Whether failure to object at trial bars appellate review of instruction error | Kuhnel noted the trial court solicited objections and later argued prejudice | BNSF argued failure to object precludes appellate review absent plain error | Court: Failure to object does preclude review except for plain error; but here no plain error found |
| Whether general verdict rule prevents appellate reversal without specifying cause | Kuhnel relied on Court of Appeals’ treatment to overturn verdict | BNSF argued general verdict rule would bar overturning without specifying which theory failed | Court: Did not reach or resolve; analysis unnecessary after finding no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Credit Bureau Servs. v. Experian Info. Solutions, 285 Neb. 526 (2013) (instructing courts to view jury instructions as a whole)
- Ballard v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 279 Neb. 638 (2010) (principles on FELA claims in state courts)
- Russell v. Stricker, 262 Neb. 853 (2001) (failure to object to jury instructions limits appellate review)
- Ragsdell v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 688 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussing a railroad’s duty under FELA)
- Holdsworth v. Greenwood Farmers Co-op, 286 Neb. 49 (2013) (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)