Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
In high-risk industries, workers who suffer injuries are usually protected by laws which hold employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance are covered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To be able to claim damages under FELA the worker must prove that their injury was caused at least partially due to negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA Vs. Workers' Compensation
While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that offer protections to employees, there are some significant differences between the two. These differences are related to the process of filing claims, fault assessment and the kinds of damages awarded in instances of injury or death. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate relief to injured workers regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants prove that their railroad employer is at least partially responsible for their injuries.
fela lawyers also allows plaintiffs to sue federal courts instead of the state workers' compensation system and provides a trial by jury. It also sets specific rules for determining damages. A worker may receive up to 80% of their weekly average wage, as well as medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also include compensation for pain and discomfort.
To be successful for a worker in a FELA case, they must show that negligence by the railroad played at least a small part in the death or injury. This is a higher standard than that required for a successful claim under workers compensation. This is a part of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by allowing injured workers to sue for damages.
In the wake of more than a century of FELA litigation, railway companies now regularly implement safer equipment, however the railway tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are some of the most dangerous workplaces. This is what makes FELA important for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as taking action against employers' inability to protect their employees.
It is important that you seek legal advice as soon as you can when you are a railway worker who has been injured at work. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to begin. Click on this link to locate the DLC firm in your region.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is a federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers in the event of injuries and deaths. The law was passed in 1920 to protect seamen who risk their lives and limbs on the high seas and other navigable waters because they aren't covered by the laws on workers' compensation like those that cover land-based workers. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which covers railroad workers and was tailored to address the unique needs of maritime employees.
Unlike workers' compensation laws which limit the recovery for negligence to a maximum amount of an 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 allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover unspecified damages, such as past and present suffering and pain, future loss of earning capacity, mental distress, etc.
A claim by a seaman under the Jones Act may be brought in a state or federal court. Plaintiffs in a suit brought under the Jones Act have the right to a trial by jury. This is a distinct method than the majority of workers' compensation laws which are typically statute-based and do not grant injured employees the right to a trial by jury.
In the case Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was requested to clarify if a seaman’s contribution to their own injury was subject to a more strict standard of proof than FELA claims. The Court held that lower courts were right in determining that the seaman had to prove that his role in the accident directly led to his injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injuries. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer argued that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were incorrect, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was only responsible for the negligence that 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
Unlike workers' compensation laws and the Federal Employers' Liability Act enables railroad employees to sue their employers directly for negligence leading to injuries. This is a crucial distinction for injured workers working in high-risk industries. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA that was enacted in 1908 was an acknowledgment of the inherent dangers of the work. It also set up uniform liability standards.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe working environment for their employees, including the use of well-maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from trains and cars to tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. To be successful an injured worker must prove that their employer violated their duty of responsibility by not providing them with a reasonably safe working environment, and that their injury resulted directly from the failure.
Some employees may find it difficult to comply with this requirement, especially if a defective piece equipment is responsible for causing an accident. This is why a lawyer who has expertise in FELA cases can be helpful. A lawyer who understands the safety requirements for railroaders, as well as the regulations that regulate these requirements, can help strengthen a worker's legal case by providing a solid legal base.
Certain railroad laws that could strengthen workers' FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws, also referred to as "railway statues," require that rail companies and, in certain cases their agents (such as supervisors, managers, or company executives), comply with these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. Violating these statutes can constitute negligence per se, meaning that a violation of any one of these rules is enough to justify an injury claim under FELA.
If an automatic coupler grab iron or another railroad device isn't installed properly or is defective, this is a common example of a railroad law violation. This is an obvious violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and when an employee is injured as a result, they may be entitled to compensation. The law states that the claim of the plaintiff could be reduced when they contributed in any way to the injury (even even if the injury is minor).
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a set of
federal employers’ liability laws which allows railroad workers and their family members to claim substantial damages if they suffer injuries on the job. This includes compensation for the loss of earnings and benefits, including medical expenses or disability payments, as well as funeral expenses. Additionally when an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim could be brought for punitive damages. This is in order to punish the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging similar conduct.
Congress passed FELA in 1908 due to public outrage at the alarming rate of fatalities and accidents on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue their employers if they suffered injuries at work.
