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

Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific conductor, injured his back on Oct. 28, 2012 while turning a brake wheel after the quick-release lever failed to release a railcar handbrake.
Winder alleged violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) for using a railcar not equipped with "efficient hand brakes," and sought recovery under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).
At trial, evidence showed the quick-release lever on the subject car did not release; Winder’s expert testified that a failed quick-release indicates inefficiency.
Union Pacific presented testimony that quick-release levers commonly fail and that such failures are not uncommon or indicative of an inefficient handbrake.
The district court denied Winder’s motion for directed verdict on the FSAA claim; a jury returned a general verdict for Union Pacific. Winder appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the quick-release lever's failure established inefficiency of the handbrake as a matter of law under FSAA	Winder: undisputed failure of the quick-release lever proves the handbrake failed to function in the normal, natural, and usual manner, so inefficiency is established as a matter of law	UP: evidence shows quick-release failures are common; the single failure does not establish inefficiency per se and is a factual issue	Denied directed verdict; issue is for the jury where evidence conflicts

Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1947) (sets two methods to prove handbrake inefficiency under FSAA: specific defect or failure to function when used with due care in the normal manner)
Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (FSAA violations may support recovery under FELA)
Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about handbrake operation creates jury question on inefficiency)
Ballard v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 279 Neb. 638 (Neb. 2010) (state courts apply civil procedure but federal law governs FELA/FSAA substantive issues)