Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
Neb.2017Background
- Kevin Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back while releasing a railcar handbrake on October 28, 2012; he pulled the quick-release lever which did not release the brake, then began turning the wheel and felt a sharp pain.
- Winder required significant medical treatment and could not return to work; he sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and alleged a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) because the quick-release lever was inefficient.
- Under FSAA, a railroad may use a railcar only if it is equipped with "efficient hand brakes;" proof of an FSAA violation can support recovery under FELA without separate negligence proof.
- Winder moved for a directed verdict at trial on the FSAA claim based on undisputed evidence that the quick-release lever failed to release the brake; the court denied the motion and submitted the case to the jury.
- The jury returned a general verdict for UP; Winder appealed solely arguing the court erred in denying his directed verdict motion on the FSAA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quick-release lever's failure to release the brake established as a matter of law that the handbrake was "inefficient" under FSAA | Winder: undisputed failure of the quick-release lever proves the handbrake did not function in the normal, natural, and usual manner, entitling him to directed verdict | UP: evidence showed quick-release failures are common; conflicting testimony exists about usual performance and causes, so inefficiency is a fact question | Denied directed verdict; issue for jury because reasonable minds could differ |
| Proper standard for proving handbrake inefficiency under FSAA | Winder: N/A (relied on Myers standard) | UP: N/A (disputed factual sufficiency) | Court applied Myers: inefficiency proven by particular defect or failure to function when used with due care in normal manner |
| Whether conflicting testimony about frequency/causes of quick-release failure permits submission to jury | Winder: argues failure was undisputed | UP: testimony that failures are frequent and industry-typical creates factual dispute | Court: conflicting evidence existed; jury question |
| Whether state court must follow federal substantive law on FELA/FSAA claims | Winder: N/A (procedural posture) | UP: N/A | Court: state court applies state procedural rules but federal statute and federal interpretive decisions govern substantive issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1947) (establishes two ways to prove handbrake inefficiency under FSAA and defines "efficient")
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (FSAA violations may be enforced via FELA remedy)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence about handbrake function presents jury question)
- Beissel v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) (FSAA provides basis and FELA provides remedy)
- Ballard v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 279 Neb. 638 (Neb. 2010) (state courts apply federal substantive law for FELA claims)
- Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 (Neb. 2013) (standard for directed verdict review)