Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin M. Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back on October 28, 2012 while turning a handbrake wheel after the quick-release lever failed to release a railcar brake.
- Winder had successfully released the first car; on the next car the quick-release lever pulled but the brake did not release, so he resorted to the wheel and felt a sudden back injury.
- Winder sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) that railcars must have "efficient hand brakes," so an FSAA violation can supply liability under FELA without separate negligence proof.
- At trial Winder moved for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim at the close of evidence; the district court denied the motion and the jury returned a general verdict for UP.
- Evidence was conflicting: Winder and his expert testified a failed quick-release shows inefficiency; UP witnesses testified quick-release failures are common in the industry and do not necessarily show an inefficient handbrake.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the factual dispute over whether the handbrake failed to function in the "normal, natural, and usual manner" presented a jury question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winder was entitled to a directed verdict on FSAA (efficient handbrake) because the quick-release lever failed to release the brake. | Winder: undisputed evidence that the quick-release lever failed to release the brake entitles him, as a matter of law, to a finding the handbrake was inefficient under FSAA. | UP: evidence showed quick-release failures are common and do not prove the handbrake was inefficient as a matter of law; factual disputes require resolution by the jury. | The court held denial of directed verdict was proper; conflicting evidence made inefficiency a jury question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (1947) (two ways to prove handbrake inefficiency: specific defect or failure to function when used with due care in the normal manner)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (FSAA violations can furnish basis for recovery under FELA)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about handbrake function presents a jury question)
- Ballard v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 279 Neb. 638 (2010) (state courts apply state procedural rules in FELA cases but federal law governs substantive FELA issues)