Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific conductor, injured his back on Oct. 28, 2012 while turning a handbrake wheel after a quick-release lever failed to release a railcar brake.
- Winder claimed violations of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and the Federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA), alleging the quick-release lever was an "inefficient handbrake."
- FSAA does not create a private cause of action but, if violated, permits recovery under FELA without additional proof of negligence.
- At trial, evidence conflicted: Winder and his expert testified the quick-release failure showed inefficiency; UP witnesses testified quick-release failures were common and sometimes expected.
- The district court denied Winder’s motion for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim; a jury returned a general verdict for UP. Winder appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quick-release lever’s failure established FSAA inefficiency as a matter of law | Winder: undisputed failure of the lever shows the handbrake failed to function in the normal, natural, and usual manner, entitling him to directed verdict | UP: evidence showed quick-release failures are common and not dispositive of inefficiency; factual dispute for jury | Denied — conflicting evidence made inefficiency a jury question |
| Proper standard for proving inefficient handbrake under FSAA | Winder: proof that the lever did not release is sufficient under Myers’ functional test | UP: must consider industry practice and whether failure was isolated or common | Court applied Myers: inefficiency can be shown by particular defect or failure to function, but factual dispute here precluded judgment as a matter of law |
| Use of state procedural law in FELA/FSAA cases | Winder: (implicit) state court should resolve under state-directed standards for directed verdict | UP: state procedural rules apply but substantive law governed by federal FSAA/FELA precedent | Confirmed: state procedural rules govern procedure; substantive issues governed by federal law and precedent |
| Whether directed verdict standard satisfied | Winder: reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion from evidence (inefficiency) | UP: reasonable minds could differ given witness testimony about frequency of failures | Denied — directed verdict improper because reasonable minds could differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (1947) (FSAA inefficiency proven by particular defect or failure to function in normal, natural, and usual manner)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (FSAA provides basis and FELA provides remedy; FSAA violations may be enforced under FELA)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about handbrake operation makes inefficiency a jury question)