Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
When workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are typically protected by laws that require employers to higher safety standards. Railroad workers, for instance, have the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
In order to be entitled to damages under FELA workers must prove their injury was caused at least in part by negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA Vs. Workers' Compensation
While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that provide protections to employees, there are some significant differences between them. These differences are related to the process of claiming as well as fault assessment and the types of damages awarded in instances of injury or death. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate relief to injured workers regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad employer is at a minimum partially responsible for their injuries.
FELA also allows workers to sue federal courts in lieu of the state workers' compensation system and provides a trial by jury. It also sets specific guidelines for the determination of damages. A worker may receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage as well as medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also include compensation for discomfort and pain.
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 much more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers compensation. This is a consequence of the FELA's past. In 1908, Congress passed FELA in order to improve the safety of rail lines by allowing workers to sue for large damages if they suffered injuries during their job.
As a result of more than 100 years of FELA litigation, railway companies now regularly adopt and deploy safer equipment, but trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops are one of the most hazardous places to work. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to address employers' negligence in protecting their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has suffered an injury in the course of work it is imperative that you seek legal advice as quickly as possible. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the most effective way to start. Follow this link to find a BLET-approved DLC firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is a federal law that permits seamen to sue their employers for on-the-job injuries and deaths. It was enacted in 1920 to ensure that seamen are protected from risking their lives and limb on the high seas and other navigable waters because they aren't covered by workers' compensation laws like those for land-based workers. It was modeled on the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) which was which covers railroad workers. It was also designed to meet the needs of maritime employees.
In contrast to workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum amount of an injured worker's lost wages Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in the event of employer negligence. In addition under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove their death or injury was directly caused by an employer's negligent actions. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for unspecified damages like future and past suffering and pain, past and future loss of earnings capacity and mental distress.
A suit for a seaman under the Jones Act can be brought in a state court or a federal court. In a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a completely new approach to the workers' compensation laws. The majority of these laws are statutes and do not grant injured workers the right to trial before a jury.
In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was asked to clarify whether a seaman's contribution to their own injury was subject to a more strict proof standard than in FELA claims. The Court ruled the lower courts were right when they ruled that the seaman had to prove that his role in the accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell received US$1.5 million in compensation for his injuries. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer claimed that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were wrong, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was only responsible for negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk claimed that the standard of causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be exactly the same.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
The Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that resulted in injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. After an accident, they can be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA was enacted in 1908 to acknowledge the inherent dangers associated with the job and to establish standard liability requirements for companies that manage railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe work environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly maintained and repaired 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 violated their duty of responsibility by failing to provide them with a reasonably safe working environment and that their injury resulted directly from this negligence.
This rule can be difficult to fulfill for some workers, particularly when a malfunctioning piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why a lawyer with expertise in FELA cases can be helpful. An attorney who understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders as well as the regulations that govern them can improve the case of a worker by providing a solid legal foundation.
The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that could help strengthen the worker's FELA claim. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and require that rail corporations, and in certain cases, their agents (like managers, supervisors or executives of companies) must follow these rules in order to ensure the safety of their employees. fela lawsuit settlements of these laws could be considered negligence in and of itself, meaning that a violation of any one of these rules is enough to justify an injury claim under FELA.
A common example of a railroad statute violation is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't properly installed or is defective. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured because of it, they may be entitled to compensation. However, the law also stipulates that if a plaintiff contributed to the injury in some way (even the injury is not severe) the amount they claim will be reduced.
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a series of federal laws that permit railroad workers and their families to claim significant damages for injuries they caused while working. This includes compensation for the loss of earnings and benefits such as medical costs or disability payments, as well as funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be sought. This is to punish the railroad and dissuade other railroads from engaging in similar actions.
Congress adopted FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage at the alarming number of fatalities and accidents on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue their employers when they were hurt in the course of their work. Railroad workers injured in the line of duty and their families were often left without financial support during the period they were unable to work due to accident or negligence of the railroad.
Injured railroad workers can bring claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The act 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 the railroad worker's share of the responsibility for an accident is determined by comparing his or her actions to those of his coworkers. The law also allows for the possibility of a jury trial.
If a railroad carrier violates the federal railroad safety law, such as The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is solely responsible for any injuries that result. The railroad does not have to prove negligence or that it contributed to an accident. You may also file an action for injuries caused by diesel exhaust fumes under the Boiler Inspection Act.
If you've been injured while working as a railroad employee, you should contact an experienced railroad injury lawyer immediately. A qualified lawyer can assist you file a claim and receive the maximum amount of compensation for the time you are not able to work because of your injury.