Anderson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed a Federal Employers’ Liability Act personal-injury action arising from the collapse of a railroad employee’s chair. The court held that the district court improperly instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur because the plaintiff alleged and presented evidence of specific negligence and the instructions permitted inconsistent findings. The court vacated the verdict and judgment, reversed the order denying a new trial, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A Nebraska state court may apply state procedural rules to a FELA claim unless FELA provides otherwise, while substantive issues are governed by FELA and federal decisions interpreting it. Res ipsa loquitur is procedural, so Nebraska law governed the instruction.
2. Res ipsa loquitur is unavailable when the plaintiff alleges specific acts of negligence or presents direct evidence of the precise cause of the accident. It applies only when the plaintiff cannot allege or prove the particular negligent act that caused the injury.
3. A jury instruction that misstates the issues and tends to confuse the jury is erroneous. The internally inconsistent instruction permitting the jury to find both that specific negligence was proved and that specific negligence could not be proved was prejudicial and required a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur when Anderson alleged specific negligent acts and presented direct evidence of the precise cause of the chair's collapse.
2. Whether the internally inconsistent res ipsa loquitur instructions and special verdict form were prejudicial and required a new trial.
3. Whether the Nebraska procedural law governing res ipsa loquitur applied to the FELA claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded