Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Workers in high-risk industries who suffer injuries are usually protected by laws which hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act, for example, protects railroad employees.
To be able to claim damages under the FELA, a victim must be able to prove that their injuries were at a minimum, caused by the negligence 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 them. These distinctions are related to the process of filing claims as well as fault assessment and the types of damages awarded in instances of death or injury. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants show that their railroad's employer is at a minimum partly responsible for their injuries.
FELA also permits workers to sue federal courts on behalf of the state workers' compensation system, and allows for a trial by jury. It also establishes specific guidelines for the calculation of damages. A worker can receive up to 80% their weekly average wage, as well as medical expenses, and an appropriate cost-of-living allowance. Additionally, a FELA suit could include compensation for pain and suffering.
To be successful for a worker in a FELA case they must prove that the railroad's negligence was at least a part in the injury or death. This is a higher requirement than the one required to win a workers compensation claim. This is a consequence of the FELA's past. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by allowing injured workers to seek damages.
In the wake of more than a century of FELA litigation railway companies today regularly implement safer equipment, however the trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops are still some of the most dangerous workplaces. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers, and to address employers' inability to protect their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has been injured in the course of work it is essential that you seek legal advice as quickly as you can. The best way to start is to reach out to an approved BLET designated Legal Counsel (DLC). Follow this link to find a BLET-approved DLC firm near you.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law which allows seafarers to sue their employer for injuries or fatalities during work. The law was passed in 1920 to protect seamen who risk their lives and limb on the high seas and other navigable waters, as they are not covered by workers' compensation laws similar to those that protect employees on land. It was modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which was a law that covers railroad employees. It was also designed to satisfy the needs of maritime workers.
The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws, which restrict the amount of negligence compensation to the maximum amount of lost wages for injured workers, provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. In fela settlements , 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 allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover unspecified damages including the past and present pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity, mental distress, etc.
A claim for a seaman in the Jones Act can be brought either in an state court or a federal court. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act have the right to jury trial. This is a fundamentally different approach than most workers' compensation laws, which are generally legal and do not give 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 their own injury was subject to a more rigorous standard of evidence than the standard of evidence in FELA cases. The Court held that lower courts were right in determining that a seaman must prove that his involvement in the accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million as compensation for his injury. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer asserted that the guidelines given to the jury by the trial court were not correct, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was solely responsible for negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk argued the standard of causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be the exact same.
FELA Vs. Safety Appliance Act
Unlike workers' compensation laws in contrast, the Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue their employers directly for negligence leading to injuries. This is an important distinction for injured workers who work in high-risk industries. After an accident, they will be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA was enacted in 1908 in recognition of the inherent dangers of the work and to establish uniform liability standards for businesses that operate railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe work environment for their employees, which includes the use of well-maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and trains to tracks, switches, and other safety gear. To be successful an injured worker must prove that their employer 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.
Some workers may find it difficult to comply with this requirement, particularly in the event that a defective piece of equipment can be the cause of an accident. This is why having a lawyer with expertise in FELA cases can be helpful. An attorney who understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can improve a worker's case by providing a strong legal foundation.
Some railroad laws that may strengthen the worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and 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 executives of companies) must follow these rules to protect their employees. Infractions to these laws could be considered negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is enough to justify a claim for injuries under the FELA.
When an automatic coupler, grab iron or other device for railroads is not installed properly or is defective, this is a common instance of a railroad law violation. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured due to the incident the employee may be entitled to compensation. However, the law stipulates that if the plaintiff was a contributor to the injury in any way (even if minimal) the amount they claim will be reduced.
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a set of federal laws that permit railroad employees and their families to recover substantial damages for injuries that they sustain while working. This includes the compensation for lost earnings and benefits like disability payments, medical expenses and funeral costs. In addition in the event that an injury results in permanent impairment or death, a claim can be brought for punitive damages. This is 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 basis for railroad workers to sue their employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without adequate financial support during the time they were unable to work because of their injuries or the negligence of the railroad.
Under the FELA railroad workers who suffer injuries can file a claim for damages in federal or state courts. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or the assumption of risk by establishing an approach based on comparative fault. The act determines the railroad worker's part of the blame for an accident by comparing their actions with those of their coworkers. The law allows for an investigation by jury.
If a railroad operator violates one of the federal railroad safety laws like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it becomes strictly liable for all injuries that result. The railroad does not have to prove that it was negligent or contribute to an accident. It is also possible to make a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured due to exposure to diesel exhaust fumes.
If you are a railroad worker who has been injured or injured, you must immediately contact an experienced lawyer for railroad accidents. A good lawyer can help you file a claim and get the maximum benefits for the time you are in a position of no work because of your injury.