Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin M. Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back on Oct. 28, 2012 while turning a handbrake wheel after the quick-release lever failed to release a railcar brake.
- Winder successfully released one car with the quick-release lever; the next lever pulled but did not release, so he used the wheel and felt a sharp back pain.
- He notified UP, sought treatment (including surgery), and sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), asserting an FSAA violation (inefficient handbrake) to obtain recovery under FELA.
- At trial, Winder moved for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim at close of evidence; the court denied the motion and the jury returned a general verdict for UP.
- On appeal, Winder argued the undisputed fact that the quick-release failed entitled him to a directed verdict that the handbrake was inefficient under FSAA.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding conflicting evidence on whether the quick-release failing was atypical or a common occurrence, making inefficiency a jury question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether undisputed failure of quick-release lever required directed verdict that handbrake was "inefficient" under FSAA | Winder: the lever’s failure to release the brake is undisputed and, per Myers, establishes inefficiency as a matter of law | UP: evidence showed quick-release failures are common in practice; disputed whether lever’s failure demonstrated inefficiency in the "normal, natural, and usual" manner | Denied — conflicting evidence about whether quick-release failure is usual made inefficiency a jury question |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (1947) (establishes two routes to prove handbrake inefficiency: specific defect or failure to function when properly operated in the normal, natural, and usual manner)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (FSAA violations can provide basis for FELA recovery)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about force used and frequency of failures makes inefficiency a jury issue)
- Beissel v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) (explains FSAA provides substantive basis and FELA provides remedy)