Translate the following text from English to the Tunisian dialect. Please follow these steps carefully:
1. *Step-by-step translation*: Translate the text in chunks, and for each part, explain how the meaning is adapted to the Tunisian dialect, especially focusing on informal expressions and cultural references.
2. *Compare with Standard Arabic*: Highlight differences between the Tunisian dialect and Standard Arabic for any phrase or sentence, particularly noting where Tunisian dialect is distinct.
3. *Selective confidence*: If there are any parts where you're confident about translating into Tunisian dialect, highlight them explicitly. If there are any parts you're unsure about translating directly into dialect, explain the challenge and how you'd adapt them.

Text to be translated:

282 F.2d 569 Walter A. BERTRAND, Appellant,v.SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a corporation, Appelllee. No. 16576. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Sept. 13, 1960, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1960. Hepperle & Hepperle, George Olshausen, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Bledsoe, Smith, Cathcart, Johnson & Phelps, Robert A. Seligson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before ORR, HAMLEY and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges. HAMLEY, Circuit Judge. 1 Walter A. Bertrand, plaintiff in this action for damages brought under the Federal Safety Appliance Acts and the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq., 51 et seq., appeals from a judgment for defendant, Southern Pacific Company. The judgment rendered after a jury trial conforms to the verdict. The specifications of error question the giving of two instructions and the refusal to give several instructions proposed by appellant. 2 Evidence favorable to appellant on the question of liability tended to establish the facts set out below. On July 3, 1957, while engaged in his duties as an employee of Southern Pacific, Bertrand attempted to release a brake on a freight car. The brake stuck and could not be released. Bertrand made a great exertion to turn the brake wheel, and then felt a sharp pain going down his back and left leg. He reported the nonfunctioning brake to the car inspectors. As a result of this report and without testing the brake to see if it worked, a car inspector took the brake apart thereby releasing it. 3 Appellant's principal specification of error challenges the giving of an instruction relating to the effect which the jury should give to evidence that the brake did not work when applied in the usual and normal manner. The jury was told that such evidence is sufficient to prove inefficiency of the brake. The jury was further instructed, however, that this does not mean that it is 'compelling' evidence. The jury was advised that it could consider all of the evidence in the case and would be free to conclude 'one way or another from all the evidence, whether there was an efficient hand brake or not.' Appellant contends that the jury should have been told that the failure of the brake to work 'compels' a finding of violation of the act. 4 Appellee argues that we cannot consider this specification of error because appellant failed to comply with Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. This rule provides in part: 5 '* * * No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.' 6 After all of the instructions were given, appellant was afforded an opportunity to object, out of the hearing of the jury, to the instructions given and refused. No objection was made at that time