Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back on Oct. 28, 2012 while turning a brake wheel after a quick-release lever failed to release a railcar handbrake.
- Winder had tried the quick-release lever first (per training); when it did not release the brake, he turned the wheel and felt a sudden sharp pain.
- He sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and invoked the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) theory that UP used a car with an "inefficient handbrake."
- FSAA does not create a private cause of action directly, but proof of an FSAA violation can establish liability under FELA.
- At trial, evidence conflicted about whether quick-release levers commonly fail and whether the failure here showed the handbrake was inefficient when operated with due care.
- 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. Winder appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a failed quick-release lever alone proves handbrake inefficiency under FSAA | Winder: failure of the quick-release to release the brake is sufficient as a matter of law to show the handbrake "failed to function . . . in the normal, natural, and usual manner" | UP: industry testimony showed quick-release failures are common, so one failure does not establish inefficiency as a matter of law | Court: Denied directed verdict; conflicting evidence made inefficiency a jury question |
| Whether FSAA liability can be established without proving a particular mechanical defect | Winder: no particular defect needed; showing failure to function suffices | UP: factual dispute whether the failure amounted to inefficiency | Court: Reiterated Myers two routes to liability (particular defect or failure to function); here failure-to-function question was factual for jury |
| Standard for directed verdict on FSAA claim | Winder: evidence was undisputed and required judgment for plaintiff | UP: reasonable minds could differ; factual resolution required | Court: Directed verdict only if only one conclusion; reasonable minds could differ, so denial proper |
| Applicability of federal FSAA/FELA standards in state court | Winder: N/A (implicitly applied) | UP: N/A (implicitly applied) | Court: State courts may apply state procedural rules but FSAA/FELA substantive law is governed by federal law and federal decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (1947) (FSAA: inefficiency shown by particular defect or failure to function when used with due care)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (FSAA violations may be enforced through FELA remedy)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence on handbrake operation makes inefficiency a jury issue)
- Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (2013) (directed verdict standard under Nebraska law)