Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Industries with high risk of injury that are injured are typically protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for example, have the
federal railroad Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To be able to claim damages under FELA, a worker must prove their injury was caused at least in part by negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA against. Workers' Compensation
There are differences between workers' compensation and FELA, even though both laws provide protection to employees. These differences are related to claims processes as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages that are awarded for injury or death. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate relief to injured workers, regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA in contrast demands that claimants prove that their railroad company was at a minimum partially responsible for their injuries.
In addition, FELA allows workers to sue in federal court rather than the state's workers compensation system. It also allows a jury trial. It also establishes specific rules for determining damages. A worker can receive up to 80% their average weekly wage together with medical expenses, and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also provide compensation for pain and discomfort.
To be successful for a worker in a FELA case they must prove that the railroad's negligence played at least a role in the resulting injury or death. This is a much more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This requirement is a result of FELA's history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to improve rail safety by permitting injured workers to seek damages.
As a result of more than 100 years of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to adopt and deploy safer equipment, but the railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are some of the most dangerous work environments. FELA is crucial to ensure the safety of railway workers and to correct employers' failures in protecting their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has been injured on the job, it is crucial that you seek legal advice as quickly as possible. Contacting a BLET-approved legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to begin. Click on this link to locate the DLC firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law that permits seamen to sue their employers for injuries or fatalities on the job. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 to provide a means to safeguard sailors who are at risk on the high seas or in other navigable waters. They are not covered by workers' compensation laws unlike employees who work on land. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which protects railroad workers, and was specifically designed to meet the specific needs of maritime employees.
Unlike workers' compensation laws, which limit recovery for negligence to a maximum of an injured worker's lost wages, the Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in the event of employer negligence. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that an employer's negligence caused their injury or death. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover damages that are not specified like the suffering and pain, as well as future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.
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 a jury trial. This is a completely new approach to workers' compensation laws. Most of these laws are statutory in nature and do not give injured workers the right to a trial before a jury.
In the case Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was asked to clarify whether a seaman's involvement in their own injury was subject to a more strict standard of proof than FELA claims. The Court ruled the lower courts were correct in determining that a seaman must prove that his role in the accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the court's instructions to the jury were incorrect, since they instructed the jury to determine Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to the injury. Norfolk argued the standard of causation in
fela case settlements 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 resulted in injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers working in high-risk industries. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and support their families. The FELA law, which was passed in 1908 was an acknowledgement of the inherent hazards of the job. It also set up standardized liability requirements.
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 cars and trains to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. To be successful, an injured worker must prove that their employer did not fulfill their obligation of care by failing to provide them with a reasonably safe working environment and that their injury was the direct result of this negligence.
Some employees may find it difficult to meet this requirement, particularly in the event that a defective piece of equipment is involved in causing an accident. An attorney with experience in
fela accident attorney claims can be of great assistance. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern these requirements can help strengthen the legal case of a worker by giving a solid legal basis.
Some railroad laws that may aid a worker's 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 cases their agents (like managers, supervisors or company executives) must comply with these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. Violations of these statutes may be considered negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation can be considered sufficient to support a claim for injury under the FELA.
When an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any other railroad device is not installed properly or is damaged, this is a common instance of a railroad law violation. If an employee is injured due to this, they could be entitled compensation. However, the law states that if the plaintiff contributed to the injury in some way (even if minimal) the claim could be reduced.
FELA vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws that allow railroad employees and their families to claim significant damages for injuries they that they sustain on the job. This includes compensation for lost earnings as well as benefits such as medical expenses, disability payments and funeral costs. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be claimed. This is intended to punish railroads for negligent actions and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar behavior.
Congress adopted FELA in 1908 due to public outrage at the alarming rate of fatalities and accidents on railroads. Prior to FELA there was no legal avenue for railroad workers to sue their employers for injuries they sustained on the job. Injured railroad workers and their families were often denied financial aid during the time they were unable work due to their accident or negligence of the railroad.