Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
894 N.W.2d 343
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back while using a brake wheel after the quick-release lever on a railcar handbrake failed to release.
- Winder had previously used the quick-release first per training; when it failed he turned the wheel and felt immediate back pain requiring surgery and preventing return to work.
- Winder sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging a Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) violation because the quick-release lever rendered the handbrake "inefficient."
- FSAA does not create a private cause of action itself, but an FSAA violation may be the basis for recovery under FELA.
- At trial, evidence conflicted: Winder and his expert testified the quick-release failure showed inefficiency; UP witnesses testified quick-release failures were common in the industry.
- The district court denied Winder’s motion for directed verdict on the FSAA claim; the jury returned a verdict for UP. Winder appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quick-release lever’s failure established as a matter of law that the handbrake was "inefficient" under FSAA | Winder: undisputed failure of the quick-release to release the brake is sufficient to show the handbrake failed to function in the normal, natural, usual manner, proving inefficiency | UP: testimony showed quick-release failures are common and thus do not prove inefficiency as a matter of law; factual dispute for jury | Court: Denied directed verdict; conflicting evidence made inefficiency a jury question |
| Proper standard for proving handbrake inefficiency under FSAA | Winder: (implicit) showing the quick-release failed satisfies the Myers standard for dysfunction | UP: requires proof of a particular defect or proof that the brake failed when operated with due care in the normal manner — a factual inquiry | Court: Adopted Myers framework: inefficiency proved by specific defect or failure to function in normal, natural, usual manner; here factual dispute exists |
| Whether the trial court could apply state procedural rules in a FELA/FSAA case | Winder: (no separate claim) | UP: state procedural rules apply unless FELA directs otherwise | Court: State procedural rules govern procedure; substantive FELA/FSAA law is federal (applied federal standards) |
| Whether directed verdict standard was met | Winder: evidence entitled him to judgment as matter of law | UP: reasonable minds could differ given conflicting testimony | Court: Directed verdict improper; issue for jury where evidence conflicts |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (establishes two routes to prove handbrake inefficiency under FSAA)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (explains relationship between FSAA and FELA remedy)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about handbrake function creates jury question)
- Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (Nebraska standard for reviewing directed verdict motions)