Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

In high-risk industries, workers who suffer injuries are usually protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance are covered by the federal railroad Employers' Liability Act (FELA).

In order to be entitled to damages under FELA workers must prove that their injury was caused at the very least partly 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 a few differences between the two. These differences are based on the process of filing claims, fault assessment and the kinds of damages awarded in cases of injury or death. Workers' compensation law offers immediate assistance to injured workers regardless of who is responsible for the accident. FELA requires that claimants show that their railroad company is at a minimum partially responsible for their injuries.

Additionally, FELA allows workers to sue in federal court rather than the state's workers compensation system. It also allows jurors for trials. It also establishes specific rules for determining damage. A worker could receive up to 80% of their weekly average wage, together with medical expenses and an appropriate cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also provide compensation for pain and discomfort.

In order to win a FELA claim the worker must show that the railroad's negligence was at the very least a factor in the injury or death. This is a higher standard than that required to win a workers compensation claim. This requirement is a result of FELA's history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to claim damages.

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

It is important that you seek legal counsel as soon as you can when you are a railway worker who has been injured at work. Contacting a BLET-approved legal counsel (DLC) firm is the most effective way to start. Click on this link to find a DLC firm in your area.

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 Jones Act was enacted in 1920 as a means to protect sailors who put their lives at risk on the high seas and 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 specific requirements of maritime workers.

Unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum of an injured worker's lost wages, the Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in cases that involve employer negligence. In addition, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injury or death was directly resulted from an employer's negligent actions. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover damages that are not specified, such as the suffering and pain, as well as future loss of earning capacity, mental distress, etc.

A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought either in the state court or in a federal court. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit 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 usually statutory and do not afford 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 contribution to their own injuries was subjected to a higher evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court decided that the lower courts were right in determining that a seaman's contribution to his own accident has to be proven to have directly caused his or her injury.

Sorrell received US$1.5 million in compensation for his injuries. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer argued that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were incorrect and they had instructed the jury that Norfolk was only responsible for negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk also argued that the standard for causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be the exact same.

Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA

The Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that caused injuries. This is a crucial distinction for injured workers working in high-risk fields. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA was passed in 1908 to recognize the inherent dangers of the job and to set up standard liability requirements for companies that operate railroads.

FELA requires railroads to provide a safe working environment for their employees, which includes the use of well-maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and locomotives to tracks, switches and other safety equipment. To be successful, an injured worker must show that their employer breached their obligation to them by not providing them with a reasonably secure working environment, and that their injury was the direct result of this negligence.

This rule can be a challenge for some workers, especially when a malfunctioning piece of equipment is involved in an accident. An attorney with experience in FELA claims can be of great assistance. A lawyer who knows the safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that regulate these requirements, can strengthen the legal 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 strengthen workers' FELA claim. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and require that rail corporations, and in some instances, their agents (like managers, supervisors, or executives of companies) must follow these rules in order to ensure the safety of their employees. Violating these statutes can constitute negligence in and of itself, meaning that a violation of one of these rules is sufficient to justify a claim for injury under FELA.

When an automatic coupler, grab iron or other railroad device is not installed properly or is damaged This is a common example of a railroad law violation. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured because of it the employee may be entitled to compensation. However, the law states that if the plaintiff contributed to their 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 collect significant damages for injuries they sustained while working. This includes the compensation for lost earnings and benefits like disability payments, medical expenses and funeral expenses. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be sought. This is in order to punish the railroad and deter other railroads from engaging similar actions.

Congress passed 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 basis 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 left without adequate financial aid during the period they were unable to work due to their injuries or negligence on the part of the railroad.

Railroad workers who are injured can bring claims for damages under FELA in either state or federal court. The act abolished defenses like The Fellow Servant Doctrine and assumption of risk and replaced them with a system of comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's portion of the responsibility for an accident is determined by comparing their actions to those of coworkers. The law also allows for the possibility of a jury trial.

If a railroad operator violates one of the federal railroad safety statutes like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. The railroad is not required to prove that it was negligent or the fact that it caused an accident. You can also make an action to recover injuries caused by exhaust fumes from diesel engines under the Boiler Inspection Act.

If you are a railroad worker who has suffered an injury and you need to immediately seek out an experienced railroad injury lawyer. A reputable attorney will be able to assist you in filing your claim and receiving the maximum benefits available for the time you aren't able to work because of your injury.