Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
296 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Kevin M. Winder, a Union Pacific (UP) conductor, injured his back on Oct. 28, 2012 while releasing a railcar handbrake; he pulled the quick-release lever which did not release the brake, then began turning the wheel and felt a sharp pain.
- Winder sued UP under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging violation of the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA) because the handbrake (quick-release) was "inefficient," which under FSAA can establish liability without separate proof of negligence.
- FSAA requires railcars be "equipped with efficient hand brakes." Inefficiency can be shown either by a particular defect or by proof the brake failed to function when used with due care in the normal, natural, and usual manner (Myers v. Reading).
- At trial the parties presented conflicting testimony: Winder and his expert said a failed quick-release shows inefficiency; UP witnesses testified quick-release failures are common and not unusual.
- Winder moved for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim at the close of evidence; the district court denied the motion and a jury returned a general verdict for UP. Winder appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the evidence required a directed verdict that the handbrake was inefficient under FSAA and affirmed the judgment for UP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winder was entitled to a directed verdict that the quick-release handbrake was "inefficient" under FSAA because the lever failed to release the brake | Winder: undisputed fact that quick-release did not release the brake is sufficient as a matter of law to show the handbrake failed to function in the normal, natural, and usual manner | UP: testimony showed quick-release failures are common in the industry; conflicting evidence makes inefficiency a fact question for the jury | Court: denied directed verdict; conflicting evidence on whether failure was "normal, natural, and usual" meant the issue was for the jury (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Reading Co., 331 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1947) (FSAA inefficiency shown by particular defect or by failure to function when used with due care in the normal, natural, and usual manner)
- Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1949) (FSAA violations may be litigated in state court; FELA provides remedy)
- Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflicting evidence on handbrake operation creates a jury question on inefficiency)
- Beissel v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., 801 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986) (FSAA supplies the substantive basis and FELA the remedy)