Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

When workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are usually protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act for instance, protects railroad employees.

In order to recover damages under FELA, a worker must prove their injury was caused at the very least in part by negligence on the part of the employer.

Workers' Compensation vs. FELA

While both workers compensation and FELA are laws that provide protection to employees, there are a few differences between them. These differences are related to the process of claiming as well as fault assessment and the types of damages that are awarded in the event of death or injury. Workers' compensation law provides immediate assistance to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA however, however demands that claimants prove that their railroad employer was at least partly accountable for their injuries.

FELA also permits workers to sue federal courts on behalf of the state workers' compensation system, and also allows a trial with a jury. It also establishes specific rules for the determination of damages. A worker can receive up to 80% their average weekly wage plus medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. Furthermore an FELA suit could include compensation for pain and suffering.

To be successful for a worker in a FELA case they must prove that the railroad's negligence played at least a part in the resulting injury or death. This is a higher standard than what is required for a successful claim under workers compensation. This requirement is a result of the FELA's past. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to improve rail safety by allowing injured workers to seek damages.

Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for more than 100 years, they use dangerous equipment and train tracks, as well as in their machine shops, yards, and other work areas. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to correct employers' negligence in protecting their employees.

It is crucial to seek legal advice as quickly as you can when you are railway worker who has been injured at work. The best method to start is by contacting an approved BLET designated Legal Counsel (DLC). Click here to locate a DLC firm in your region.

FELA vs. Jones Act

The Jones Act is a federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers for on-the-job injuries and deaths. The Jones Act was passed in 1920 as a way to protect sailors who risk their lives on the high seas or in other navigable waters. They are not covered by workers' compensation laws unlike workers on land. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which protects railroad workers, and was tailored to address the unique requirements of maritime workers.

Unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum of the injured worker's lost wages, Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in cases that involve employer negligence. 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 pain and suffering as well as future and past loss of earnings capacity and mental distress.

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

In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was requested to clarify whether a seaman's involvement in their own injury was subject to a more strict evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court held that the lower courts were correct in determining that a seaman's role in his own accident has to be shown as having directly caused the injury.

Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million in compensation for his injuries. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the court's instructions to the jury were incorrect in that they instructed the jury to determine Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to the victim's injury. Norfolk argued that the causation standard should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.

Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA

The Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that led to injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. After an accident, they will be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA that was enacted in 1908, was an acknowledgement of the inherent risks of the job. It also established standardized liability requirements.

FELA requires railroads to provide a safe workplace for their employees. This includes the use of maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from trains and cars to tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. To allow an injured worker to be successful in a claim they must show that their employer acted in breach of their duty of care by failing to provide a reasonably safe work environment and that the injury occurred as directly caused by the failure.

Some workers may find it difficult to meet this requirement, particularly if a defective piece equipment is involved in causing an accident. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims can be of great assistance. A lawyer who knows the safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern these requirements can help bolster the legal case of a worker by giving a solid legal basis.

Certain railroad laws that could aid a 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 railroad corporations, and in some instances their agents (like managers, supervisors or executives of companies) must comply with these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. Violation of these laws could be considered negligence in and of itself, meaning that a violation of one of these rules is enough to support an injury claim under fela settlements.

A common example of an infraction to the railroad statute is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron is not properly installed or has a defect. If an employee is injured due to this, they could be entitled to compensation. However, the law also states that if the plaintiff was a contributor to the injury in any way (even even if it was a minor cause), their claim may be reduced.

Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA

FELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad employees and their families to claim substantial damages if they suffer injuries while working. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits such as medical expenses, disability payments and funeral costs. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages may also be sought. This is a way to penalize railroads for negligent actions and deter other railroads from engaging in similar behavior.

Congress adopted FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage over the appalling number of fatalities and accidents on railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Railroad workers injured in the line of duty and their families were often denied financial aid during the period they were unable to work because of their accident or negligence of the railroad.

Under the FELA railroad workers who suffer injuries may seek damages in federal or state courts. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine, or the assumption of risk with a system based on the concept of comparative fault. The act determines a railroad worker’s part of the blame for an accident by comparing their actions to the actions of their coworkers. The law permits an investigation by jury.

If a railroad carrier is found to be in violation of federal railroad safety laws, such as The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it becomes strictly liable for all injuries that result. It is not necessary for the railroad to prove it was negligent or even that it was a contributing to the accident. It is also possible to make a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured due to exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.

If you have been injured on the job as a railroad worker, you should contact an experienced railroad injury lawyer right away. The right lawyer can assist you in filing your claim and receiving the maximum benefits available in the time you aren't working because of the injury.