Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
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
In the case of Winder v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) and the federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA). The court ruled that state procedural rules could apply to the claim unless the act specifies otherwise, while substantive issues are governed by the act and federal court interpretations. The court clarified the standard for reviewing directed verdict motions, stating that such motions must be treated as admitting the truth of all competent evidence presented by the opposing party, allowing for all reasonable inferences in their favor. A directed verdict is appropriate only when the evidence leads to a single reasonable conclusion. Under 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(1)(B) of the FSAA, a railroad may use vehicles equipped with efficient handbrakes, and an employee can demonstrate inefficiency either by proving a specific defect or by showing that the handbrake failed to function properly when used with due care. The terms "efficient" and "inefficient" are defined in relation to the performance and desired effects of the handbrakes. In instances of conflicting evidence about the functionality of the handbrake, the issue of inefficiency must be resolved by a jury. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Union Pacific, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. On October 28, 2012, Winder, a conductor for UP in North Platte, Nebraska, was injured while manually releasing handbrakes on railcars. He successfully released the first railcar's brake but experienced sharp back pain while attempting to use the quick-release lever on the second railcar, which did not function properly. After notifying UP and receiving medical treatment, including surgery, Winder was unable to return to work and subsequently filed a lawsuit against UP under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) and the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA). Winder claimed that UP violated FSAA, which mandates that railcars must be equipped with "efficient hand brakes," arguing the quick-release lever was inefficient. During the trial, he moved for a directed verdict on the FSAA claim, but the district court denied it, and the jury ruled in favor of UP. Winder appealed, asserting that the court erred by not directing a verdict in his favor. The standard of review for such motions requires that all evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, and a directed verdict is appropriate only when no reasonable minds could differ on the evidence presented. The FSAA's requirement for efficient hand brakes has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as an absolute prohibition against using non-compliant railcars. In *Myers v. Reading Co.*, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the efficient handbrake requirement under the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA). An employee can demonstrate a handbrake's inefficiency in two ways: by proving a specific defect or by showing it failed to operate correctly despite due care. The court defined "efficient" as adequately performing its intended function, while "inefficient" means failing to produce the desired effect. Winder did not assert a specific defect but presented evidence that the quick-release lever did not operate as intended, necessitating the use of the wheel to release the brake. The key issue was whether this evidence warranted a directed verdict on the handbrake's inefficiency. The court found no error in denying Winder’s motion for a directed verdict, citing case law indicating that when evidence conflicts regarding a handbrake's functionality, the matter is for the jury. In related cases, such as *Strickland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.* and *Chapp v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co.*, the courts ruled that conflicting evidence about handbrake performance precludes a determination of inefficiency as a matter of law. Testimony from various witnesses in Winder's trial indicated differing experiences with the reliability of quick-release levers, further supporting the jury's role in resolving these factual disputes. The court concluded that reasonable minds could differ on the matter, affirming the district court's judgment.