Winder v. Union Pacific RR. Co.

Citation: 296 Neb. 557Docket: S-15-1100

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; May 5, 2017; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Winder v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Kevin M. Winder appealed a jury verdict favoring Union Pacific Railroad (UP) after he sustained a back injury while attempting to release a railcar's handbrake. The court addressed several key legal principles regarding claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA). 

1. State courts can use their procedural rules for claims under FELA, but substantive issues are governed by the act and federal court interpretations.
2. During an appeal concerning a directed verdict, the appellate court must assume all evidence presented by the opposing party is true, favoring the resolution of disputed facts in that party's benefit.
3. A directed verdict is appropriate only when reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion from the evidence, indicating a matter should be resolved as a legal issue.
4. Under the FSAA, railroads must ensure railcars are equipped with efficient handbrakes.
5. Employees can demonstrate a handbrake's inefficiency either by proving a specific defect or by showing it failed to function properly when used correctly.
6. "Efficient" is defined as adequately performing its intended purpose, while "inefficient" indicates a failure to produce the desired effect.
7. If evidence conflicts regarding the handbrake's effectiveness when used as intended, the jury must determine the issue of inefficiency.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, maintaining the jury's verdict in favor of UP.

On October 28, 2012, Winder, a conductor for UP in North Platte, Nebraska, was injured while manually releasing handbrakes on railcars, which are essential for securing stationary trains. He was trained to first attempt using a quick-release lever, and if that failed, to turn the brake wheel counter-clockwise. After successfully releasing the first railcar's handbrake, he encountered a malfunction with the quick-release lever on the second railcar, prompting him to turn the wheel. During this process, he experienced a sharp back pain and subsequently ceased work, notifying UP and seeking medical attention, which included surgery. Winder could not return to work and subsequently filed a lawsuit against UP under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA). Although FSAA does not explicitly provide a right of action to injured parties, a violation under FSAA can support a FELA claim without requiring additional proof of negligence. Winder alleged that UP violated FSAA by using an inefficient quick-release lever on the handbrake. At trial, Winder requested a directed verdict on the FSAA claim, but the district court denied this motion, and the jury ultimately ruled in favor of UP. Winder appealed, asserting that the court erred in not granting the directed verdict. The standard for such a motion requires that it be treated as an admission of the truth of the opposing party's evidence, allowing for resolution of disputed facts in favor of that party, with a directed verdict appropriate only when reasonable minds cannot differ on the conclusion drawn from the evidence.

Railroad carriers are mandated by the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA) to use vehicles equipped with "efficient hand brakes." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement as an absolute prohibition against using any car lacking efficient hand brakes. In the case of Myers v. Reading Co., the Court established two methods for demonstrating the inefficiency of handbrakes: by proving a specific defect or by showing that the handbrake did not function properly when used correctly. "Efficient" is defined as adequately performing its intended function, while "inefficient" refers to the inability to produce the desired effect.

In the current case, Winder claims that the handbrake was inefficient because the quick-release lever failed to operate, leaving him to manually release the brake. However, he does not assert that there was a specific defect in the handbrake itself. The central legal issue is whether this evidence entitled Winder to a directed verdict, establishing as a matter of law that the handbrake did not function normally. The court found no error in denying the directed verdict, citing case law that indicates conflicting evidence regarding a handbrake’s functionality should be resolved by a jury.

Notable cases include Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., where a worker's inability to use the quick-release lever and subsequent injury suggested a factual dispute regarding handbrake efficiency, prompting the 11th Circuit to reverse a summary judgment in favor of the railroad. Similarly, in Chapp v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co., conflicting evidence on whether the handbrake functioned normally led the court to deny a summary judgment motion based on inefficiency. The current trial also presented conflicting evidence concerning the typical operation of the quick-release lever, reinforcing the need for jury deliberation on this issue.

Winder, a conductor, recalled only two instances of a quick-release lever failing to release a handbrake. An expert witness supported this by stating that a malfunctioning quick-release lever leads to inefficient handbrake operation. In contrast, a UP trainman testified that such failures occurred regularly, estimating the lever worked only about half the time, and noted it was common in the industry for these levers to malfunction. A UP supervisor echoed this sentiment, stating that failures were frequent, while a railroad consultant confirmed that non-functioning quick-release levers were "not at all uncommon." The court articulated that a directed verdict is appropriate only when reasonable minds cannot differ on the evidence, which was not the case here due to conflicting testimonies about the handbrake's functionality. Consequently, the district court correctly denied the motion for a directed verdict, allowing the jury to decide on the matter. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, with Judge Miller-Lerman not participating in the decision.