Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 296 Neb. 557

Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back while turning a handbrake wheel after a quick‑release lever failed to release a railcar brake.
Winder had used the quick‑release first (per training); when it did not release the brake he turned the wheel and felt a sudden back injury requiring surgery and permanent work loss.
Winder sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and asserted liability under the Federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) by alleging the quick‑release lever made the handbrake "inefficient."
At trial, Winder moved for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim; the trial 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 to release the brake established handbrake inefficiency as a matter of law.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding conflicting evidence about whether quick‑release failures were common made inefficiency a jury question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether undisputed failure of quick‑release lever establishes FSAA "inefficient handbrakes" as a matter of law	Winder: lever pulled but did not release brake; that proof alone shows the handbrake failed to function in the normal, natural, and usual manner so inefficiency as a matter of law	UP: evidence showed quick‑release failures are common and expected in industry; conflicting evidence makes inefficiency a fact question for the jury	Denied directed verdict; conflicting evidence precluded deciding inefficiency as a matter of law — jury question
Whether directed verdict standard was met	Winder: one reasonable conclusion (inefficiency) from the evidence	UP: reasonable minds could differ given witness testimony about frequency and normality of quick‑release failures	Standard applied: directed verdict only when reasonable minds cannot differ; here they could, so denial affirmed

Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1947) (two ways to prove handbrake inefficiency: specific defect or failure to function when used with due care in normal manner)
Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (FSAA violations provide basis for FELA recovery)
Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence on force and usual operation makes inefficiency a jury issue)
Beissel v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R. Co., 801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) (FSAA supplies the basis for liability while FELA supplies the remedy)