Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

When workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are generally protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance, have the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).

To claim damages under the FELA, a victim must be able to prove that their injuries were at least in part caused due to the negligence of their employer.

Workers' Compensation vs. FELA

While both workers compensation and FELA are laws that offer protection to employees, there are significant differences between them. These differences relate to claims processes, fault evaluation and the types of damages that are awarded in the event of death or injury. Workers' compensation law gives rapid assistance to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad's employer is at the very least partially responsible for their injuries.

FELA also permits plaintiffs to sue federal courts instead of the state workers' compensation system and allows for a trial by jury. It also sets specific rules for determining damages. A worker could receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage as well as medical expenses and an appropriate cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also provide compensation for pain and discomfort.

To be successful for a worker in a FELA case, they must show that the railroad's negligence was at least a role in the resulting injury or death. This is a higher requirement than the one required to win a workers compensation claim. This is a consequence of FELA's history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA in an effort to increase safety on the rails by allowing workers to sue for substantial damages if they were injured during their job.

In the wake of more than a century of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to implement safer equipment, but railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops remain some of the most dangerous workplaces. This makes FELA essential for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing the failures of employers to safeguard their employees.

If you are a railway worker who was injured while on the job, it is crucial to seek legal advice as soon as possible. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click here to locate a DLC firm in your region.

FELA vs. Jones Act

The Jones Act is federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers for any injuries or deaths they suffer during work. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 as a means to protect sailors who are at risk on the high seas or other navigable waters. They are not covered by workers' compensation laws, unlike employees who work on land. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which protects railroad workers, and was tailored to address the specific needs of maritime employees.

The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws, which restrict the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum of lost wages for an injured worker, provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that an employer's negligence caused their death or injury. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for unspecified damages including future and past suffering, past and future loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.

A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought in either a state court or a federal court. In a suit under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a jury trial. This is a distinct approach than most workers' compensation laws, which are generally legal and do not give injured employees the right to a jury trial.

In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was asked to clarify if a seaman’s involvement in their own injury was subjected to a higher evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court decided that the lower courts were correct in determining that the seaman must prove his role in the accident directly led to his injury.

Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous in that they instructed the jury to decide to hold Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to his or her injury. Norfolk argued that the standard of causation should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.

FELA vs. Safety Appliance Act

Contrary to laws regarding workers' compensation and the Federal Employers' Liability Act enables railroad workers to sue their employers directly for negligence that led to injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. This enables workers to receive compensation for their injuries and also to maintain their families after an accident. The FELA, which was passed in 1908 was an acknowledgment of the inherent risks of the job. It also set up uniform liability standards.

FELA requires that railroads offer a safe working environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly repaired and maintained equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. To be successful, an injured worker must demonstrate that their employer has breached their obligation to them by failing to provide them with a safe working environment and that their injury resulted directly from this negligence.

This requirement can be difficult to fulfill for some workers, especially when a malfunctioning piece of equipment is involved in an accident. A lawyer with experience in FELA claims is a great resource. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements can strengthen the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal base.

Certain railroad laws that could aid the worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws are referred to as "railway statutes" and require that rail corporations, and in some cases, their agents (like managers, supervisors or executives of companies) must comply with these rules to protect their employees. The violation of these statutes could be considered to be negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is enough to justify a claim for injury under the FELA.

When an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any another railroad device isn't installed correctly or is damaged, this is a common instance of a lawful railroad violation. If an employee is injured because of this, they could be entitled to compensation. However, the law also stipulates that if the plaintiff was a contributor to the injury in some way (even the injury is not severe), their claim may be reduced.

Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA

FELA is a set of federal laws which allows railroad employees and their family members to recover substantial damages if they suffer injuries while on the job. This includes compensation for the loss of earnings and benefits, including medical expenses as well as disability benefits and funeral expenses. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be sought. This is a way to penalize railroads for their negligence and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar actions.

Congress adopted FELA in response to the public's outrage in 1908 over the shocking rate of accidents and deaths on railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue their employers for injuries they sustained on the job. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without financial support during the time they were unable to work because of their injuries or the negligence of the railroad.

Under the FELA railroad workers who are injured are able to file a claim for damages in federal or state courts. The act has replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine, or the assumption of risk by establishing an approach based on the concept of comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's share of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing his or her actions with those of his coworkers. The law also permits the possibility of a jury trial.

If a railroad company is found to be in violation of federal railroad safety statutes such as The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. This does not require the railroad to prove that it was negligent, or even that it was a contributing to the cause of an accident. You may also file a claim for injuries caused by diesel exhaust fumes under the Boiler Inspection Act.

If you are a railroad employee who has suffered an injury and you need to immediately seek out an experienced lawyer for railroad injuries. The right lawyer can assist you in filing your claim and getting the maximum benefits available for the time you aren't able to work due to the injury.