Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

Industries with high risk of injury that suffer injuries are usually protected by laws which hold employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance are covered by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).

To claim damages under the FELA the plaintiff must be able to prove that their injuries were at least partially caused by the negligence of the employer.

Fela accident law expert vs. Workers' Compensation

There are differences between workers' compensation and FELA, even though both laws provide protection to employees. These distinctions are related to claims processes as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages awarded in the event of death or injury. Workers' compensation law gives quick assistance to injured workers regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA however, in contrast requires claimants to prove that their railroad employer was at a minimum partially accountable for their injuries.

FELA also allows workers to sue federal courts instead of the state workers' compensation system, and allows for a trial by jury. It also has specific rules for determining damages. A worker could receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage together with medical expenses, and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. A FELA lawsuit may also include compensation for pain and discomfort.

In order for a worker to be successful in a FELA case they must prove that the railroad's negligence was at least a part in the death or injury. This is a far more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers compensation. This is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to sue for 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 yards, machine shops, and other work areas. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to correct employers' inability to protect their employees.

It is important that you seek legal advice as quickly as you can if you are a railway worker who has been injured at work. The best way to start is to contact a designated Legal Counselor from BLET (DLC). Click this link to find a BLET-approved DLC firm in your area.

FELA vs. Jones Act

The Jones Act is federal law which allows seafarers to sue their employer for injuries or fatalities while on the job. It was passed in 1920 to ensure that seamen are protected from risking 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 employees on land. It was modeled after the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which covers railroad workers. It was also crafted to meet the needs of maritime employees.

The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws which limit the amount of negligence compensation to a maximum of lost wages for an injured worker, provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. Additionally under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injuries or deaths were directly resulted from an employer's negligent behavior. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover damages that are not specified including the past and present suffering and pain, as well as future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.

A claim by a seaman under the Jones Act may be brought in either a state or federal court. Plaintiffs in a suit brought under the Jones Act have the right to jury trial. This is a distinct approach to the majority of workers' compensation laws which are generally statute-based and do not grant injured workers the right to a trial by 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 his or her own injury was subject to a higher standard of evidence than the standard of evidence in FELA cases. The Court ruled that the lower courts were correct in their decision that a seaman's role in his own accident has to be shown to have directly caused the injury.

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

Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA

In contrast to the laws governing workers' compensation, the Federal Employers' Liability Act enables railroad workers to sue their employers directly for negligence that leads to injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. This enables them to be compensated for their injuries as well as take care of their families following an accident. The FELA was passed in 1908 in recognition of the inherent dangers associated with the work and to establish standard liability requirements for companies who operate railroads.

FELA requires that railroads provide a safe work environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and locomotives to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. To be successful an injured worker must show that their employer breached their obligation to them by failing to provide them with a reasonably safe working environment, and that their injury resulted directly from this failure.

This requirement 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 with experience in FELA cases can help. A lawyer who knows the safety requirements for railroaders, as well as the regulations that regulate these requirements, can help bolster the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal base.

Some railroad laws that may aid a worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and fela accident law expert the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and require that rail corporations, and in some instances their agents (like managers, supervisors, or company executives) must adhere to these rules in order to protect their employees. Violations of these statutes may be considered to be negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is enough to support a claim for injury under the FELA.

An example of a railroad statute violation is when an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't properly installed or is defective. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and when an employee is injured because of it the employee may be entitled to compensation. The law stipulates that the claims of the plaintiff can be reduced if they were responsible in any way to the injury (even when the injury is not severe).

Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA

FELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad employees and their family members to claim substantial damages if they are injured while working. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits like disability payments, medical expenses and funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages may also be claimed. This is in order to punish the railroad and dissuade other railroads from engaging in similar actions.

Congress passed FELA as a response to the public's anger in 1908 about the alarming number of deaths and accidents on railroads. Prior to FELA there was no legal way for railroad employees to sue their employers if they suffered injuries at work. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without financial assistance during the time they were unable to work due to their injury or the negligence of the railroad.

Railroad workers who are injured can bring claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The act eliminated defenses such as The Fellow Servant Doctrine and assumption of risk, and replaced them with the concept of comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's portion of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing their actions to those of coworkers. The law permits an investigation by jury.

If a railroad company 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. This does not require the railroad to prove that it was negligent or even that it was a cause of an accident. It is also possible to file an action under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured due to exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.

If you've been injured on the job as a railroad worker you must contact a seasoned railroad injury attorney immediately. A reputable attorney will be able to assist you in submitting your claim and getting the highest amount of benefits for the time you aren't working due to the injury.