Cramer v. Union Pacific - Nebraska Supreme Court Rules on Jury Instructions and Expert Testimony
Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court issued a ruling in Cramer v. Union Pacific on April 23, 2026, addressing claims brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) by a railroad worker injured during employment. The court examined multiple trial issues including jury instruction sufficiency, expert witness admissibility under Daubert standards, and the burden of proof required to establish railroad negligence and causation. The opinion provides guidance on when expert testimony regarding safety procedures and workplace causation meets the admissibility threshold.
Railroad operators and their legal counsel should review this decision when preparing FELA litigation strategy — the Nebraska Supreme Court's Daubert analysis and FELA causation jury instruction guidance may be cited in similar cases. Firms with railroad operations should ensure safety documentation and expert witness qualifications align with the evidentiary standards articulated here.
About this source
GovPing monitors Nebraska Supreme Court for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 22 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff Cramer in his Federal Employers' Liability Act action against Union Pacific Railroad. The court addressed whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding railroad safety practices and causation, and whether jury instructions properly conveyed the burden of proof for negligence claims under FELA. The ruling clarifies evidentiary standards for expert witnesses in railroad injury cases and the sufficiency requirements for jury instructions on causation. Transportation companies operating under FELA should note the court's standards for expert testimony admissibility and proper jury instruction language.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 04/23/2026 02:13 PM CDT
___ N.W.3d ___
Judgments: Pleadings: Appeal and Error.
- Jury Instructions: Appeal and Error.
- Jury Instructions: Proof: Appeal and Error.
Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error.
Judgments: Words and Phrases.
- Trial: Expert Witnesses: Appeal and Error.
- - Federal Acts: Railroads: Claims: Courts.
-
Jury Instructions: Appeal and Error.
- Appeal and Error: Words and Phrases. - Jury Instructions: Presumptions.
Federal Acts: Jury Instructions.
- Federal Acts: Jury Instructions.
Trial: Expert Witnesses.
Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Schafersman v. Agland Coop -
-
1
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
- -
- - - - -
- -
- - -
- - - -
- -
- - - -
- - -
-
- - - - -
- - - - -
- -
Lombardo v. Sedlacek 2 State v. Tvrdy 3
4 Id.
132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy 5
6 Id.
Carson v. Steinke 7
- - - - - - -
Ballard v. Union Pacific RR. Co. 8
- - - -
State v. Tvrdy, supra
J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health
11 Id.
In re Estate of Clinger12
- - -
Helmer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 13 Yeager v. United States Allen v. Minnstar, Inc. 14
Howard D. Jury, Inc. v. R & G Sloane Mfg. Co.
15
-
Allen v. Minnstar, Inc., supra16
- -
Bauder v. Philadelphia, Bethlehem, & New England R. Co.
Bauder Bauder -
17 Bauder v. Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England R. Co. 18
id.
id.
Ballard v. Union Pacific RR. Co., supra 21
Clark v. Burlington Northern, Inc.22
to indemnify itself against
possible liabilities
- - - -
23 Andrews v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Corp. 24 Clark v. Burlington Northern, Inc., supra 25 Id.26 Clark v. Burlington Northern, Inc., supra 27 id.28
id.
id.
- Clark v. Burlington Northern, Inc. - Fogg v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
Fogg v. National R.R. Passenger Corp. 31 Clark v. Burlington Northern, Inc., supra 32 Id.33 Clark v. Burlington Northern, Inc., supra 34 Fogg v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., supra35 Id.36 id.37
- Brady v. National R.R. Passenger
Corp.
- Brady - Fogg Brady
Id.38
Brady v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
id.
id.41 id.42 Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall43 Ellis v. Union Pacific R. Co. Fogg v. National
R.R. Passenger Corp., supra
which provides periodic benefits Clark Brady FoggBrady - - - - - -
44
- - - - -
Gustafson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co.45 id.46 Stevens v. Bangor and Aroostook R.R. Co. 47
- - - - - - Maurer v. United States -
id.48
Sauer v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
Id.
51 Id.
52 Id.
Maurer v. United States53 54
- Maurer- - McLaughlin v. BNSF Ry. Co. - Sauer v. Burlington Northern R.
Co.
- -
Maurer v. United States, supra 55 Id.56 McLaughlin v. BNSF Ry. Co.57 Sauer v. Burlington Northern R. Co., supra 58
Id.
Sauer v. Burlington Northern R. Co., supra
McLaughlin - -
Fashauer v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations61 Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, supra 43. Meyers v. Union Pacific R. Co.62
- - - - Lillie v. U.S. - - -
Taylor v. Burlington Northern R. Co.63 Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Thomas 64 Gustafson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., supra Gustafson v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., supra65 Lillie v. U.S.66
- - Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Schafersman v. Agland Coop
- DaubertSchafersman
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 67 Schafersman v. Agland Coop68
Carson v. Steinke, supra
Schafersman v. Agland Coop, supra
Pitts v. Genie Indus.71
Kempf Contracting Design v. Holland-Tucker - - - - -
idSchafersman v. Agland Coop, supra72 Kempf Contracting Design v. Holland-Tucker73 Id.74
- - three -
1 2 3 id 4
- - -
5 City of Wahoo v. NIFCO Mech. Systems 6 Sinsel v. OlsenRussell
- StrickerWheeler v. Bagley
Named provisions
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Nebraska Supreme Court
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NE Courts.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Nebraska Supreme Court publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.