Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
In high-risk industries, workers who suffer injuries are usually protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for example are covered by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
In order to be entitled to damages under FELA, a worker 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 protection to employees, there are some significant differences between the two. These differences relate to the process of submitting claims, fault evaluation and the types of damages awarded for injury or death. Workers' compensation law offers rapid aid to injured workers, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad's employer is at a minimum partly responsible for their injuries.
FELA also allows workers to sue federal courts instead of the state workers' compensation system and also allows a trial with a jury. It also sets specific rules for determining damage. A worker could receive up to 80% their weekly average wage, plus medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. Furthermore the FELA suit could include compensation for pain and suffering.
In order for a worker to be successful in a FELA case, they must show that the railroad's negligence was at least a small part in the resulting injury or death. This is a far more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This requirement is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA in an effort to increase the safety of rail lines by allowing workers to sue for large damages if they were injured during their work.
Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for more than 100 years, they continue to use dangerous equipment and tracks for trains, as well as in their yards, machine shops, and other work areas. FELA is crucial to ensure the safety of railway workers and to tackle employers' inability to protect their employees.
If you are a railway employee who has suffered an injury on the job it is imperative to seek legal advice as quickly as you can. Contacting a BLET-approved legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click here to find a DLC firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law that permits seafarers to sue their employers for injuries or fatalities during work. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 to provide a means to safeguard sailors who risk their lives on the high seas or other navigable waters. They are not covered under workers' compensation laws unlike land-based employees. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which covers railroad workers, and was designed to meet the unique requirements of maritime workers.
The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of negligence compensation to the maximum amount of lost wages for an injured worker and provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. Additionally to this, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injuries or deaths were directly resulted from an employer's negligent actions. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for unspecified damages including future and past suffering and pain in the past and future, loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.
A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought in the state court or in a federal court. In a suit under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a fundamentally different method than the majority of workers' compensation laws which are typically statute-based and do not grant the injured employee the right to a jury trial.
In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell, the US Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the contribution of a seaman to his or her own injury was subject to a more rigorous standard of evidence than the standard of proof in FELA cases. The Court ruled that the lower courts were correct when they determined that the seaman's involvement in his own accident must be proven to have directly caused the injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million as compensation for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the court's instructions to the jury were erroneous, since they instructed the jury to decide to hold Norfolk responsible only for any negligence directly contributing to his or her injury. Norfolk argued the standard of causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be the exact same.
FELA Vs. Safety Appliance Act
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 sectors. This allows workers to receive compensation for their injuries and also to support their families following an accident. The FELA was enacted in 1908 in recognition of the inherent dangers associated with the job and to set up uniform liability standards for companies who operate railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe working environment for their employees, which includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. To allow an injured worker to succeed in a claim, they must prove that their employer breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe work environment and that the injury was directly caused by this negligence.
This rule can be a challenge for some workers, particularly when a malfunctioning piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why having a lawyer who has expertise in FELA cases can be of assistance. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements, can strengthen a worker's legal case by giving a solid legal basis.
Certain railroad laws that could help workers' FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and mandate that rail corporations, and in certain instances their agents (like managers, supervisors, or executives of companies) must follow these rules in order to ensure the safety of their employees. Infractions to these laws can be considered negligence by itself, which means that a violation of any one of these rules is enough to support an injury claim under FELA.
A common illustration of an infraction to the railroad statute is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't correctly installed or is defective. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and if an employee is hurt because of it they could be entitled to compensation. fela law firm that the claim of the plaintiff may be reduced if they contributed in any way to the injury (even when the injury is not severe).
FELA vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad workers and their family members to claim significant damages if they are injured while working. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits such as medical expenses, disability payments and funeral costs. In addition, if an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim can be filed for punitive damages. This is to penalize the railroad and dissuade other railroads from engaging in similar actions.
Congress approved FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage at the alarming rate of fatalities and accidents on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal mechanism for railroad employees to sue their employers when they suffered injuries at work. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without adequate financial assistance during the time that they could not work due to their injury or the negligence of the railroad.
Under the FELA, railroad workers who suffer injuries may 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 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 his coworkers. The law permits the jury to decide on the case.
If a railroad operator violates a federal railroad safety law, such as The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is solely responsible for any injuries that result. It is not necessary for the railroad to prove that it was negligent or that it was a contributing to the cause of an accident. You may also file a claim for injuries caused by exhaust fumes from diesel engines under the Boiler Inspection Act.
If you have been injured on the job as a railroad employee, you must contact a seasoned railroad injury attorney immediately. A good lawyer can help you file your claim and receive the maximum amount of compensation in the event that you are not able to work because of your injury.