Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific conductor, injured his back while turning a wheel to release a railcar handbrake after the quick-release lever failed to release the brake.
- Winder sought medical treatment, underwent surgery, and could not return to work.
- He sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and alleged a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) that railcars must be equipped with “efficient hand brakes.”
- Winder did not claim a specific mechanical defect; he relied on the quick-release lever’s failure as proof the handbrake was inefficient.
- At trial, conflicting testimony addressed how commonly quick-release levers fail and whether their failure shows inefficiency as a matter of law.
- The district court denied Winder’s motion for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim, the jury returned a verdict for Union Pacific, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lever failure alone proves handbrake inefficiency under FSAA | Winder: quick-release lever failed to release the brake, so handbrake was inefficient as a matter of law | UP: evidence showed levers commonly fail; lever failure alone does not establish inefficiency as a matter of law | Denied — conflicting evidence made inefficiency a jury question |
| Standard for proving inefficiency under FSAA | Winder: showing lever failed when used suffices under Myers test | UP: Myers requires either a specific defect or proof brake failed when operated with due care in normal manner; facts disputed | Held: Myers governs; either method applies, but here factual dispute precluded directed verdict |
| Appropriateness of directed verdict on FSAA claim | Winder: reasonable minds could only conclude inefficiency — directed verdict required | UP: reasonable minds could differ given witness testimony; issue for jury | Denied — directed verdict improper because evidence was conflicting |
| Applicability of state procedure to FELA/FSAA claims | Winder: (implicit) state court should resolve under FSAA standards | UP: federal substantive law governs FSAA interpretation despite state procedure | Held: Substantive FSAA/FELA issues governed by federal law; state procedural rules apply where consistent |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1947) (establishes two methods to prove handbrake inefficiency under FSAA: specific defect or failure when operated with due care in normal manner)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (FSAA violations may support recovery under FELA)
- Beissel v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) (FSAA provides basis and FELA the remedy)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence on handbrake operation creates jury question)
- Ballard v. Union Pacific RR Co., 279 Neb. 638 (Neb. 2010) (state courts may use state procedural rules but federal law controls substantive FELA issues)
- Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (Neb. 2013) (directed verdict proper only when reasonable minds cannot differ)