Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific conductor, injured his back while manually releasing a railcar handbrake after the quick-release lever failed and he turned the brake wheel.
- Winder underwent significant medical treatment and sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging liability based on a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) requiring "efficient hand brakes."
- Winder did not assert a specific mechanical defect; he relied on the quick-release lever's failure to release the brake as evidence of inefficiency under FSAA.
- At trial, witnesses provided conflicting evidence about how common quick-release failures are and whether a failed quick-release alone proves an inefficient handbrake.
- The district court denied Winder’s motion for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim; the jury returned a general verdict for UP. Winder appealed, arguing the court should have directed verdict for him on the FSAA violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quick-release lever failing to release the brake, by itself, establishes as a matter of law that the handbrake was "inefficient" under FSAA | Winder: The undisputed fact that the quick-release lever failed to release the brake proves the handbrake failed to function in the normal, natural, and usual manner and thus was inefficient | UP: Evidence shows quick-release failures are common in the industry; the single instance does not establish inefficiency as a matter of law and factual issues remain for the jury | Denied directed verdict; conflicting evidence made inefficiency a question for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (1947) (establishes two proofs of handbrake inefficiency: particular defect or failure to function when used with due care in normal manner)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (FSAA violations can underpin recovery under FELA)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about handbrake operation precludes deciding inefficiency as matter of law)
- Beissel v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) (FSAA supplies basis while FELA supplies the remedy)
- Ballard v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 279 Neb. 638 (2010) (state courts apply procedural rules but federal law governs substantive FELA issues)
- Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (2013) (standard for directed verdict review)