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 Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
In order to recover damages under FELA the worker must prove that their injury was caused at the very least partly due to negligence on the part of the employer.
Workers' Compensation vs. FELA
While both workers compensation and FELA are laws that provide protections to employees, there are significant differences between them. These distinctions are related to the claims process, fault evaluation and the types of damages that are awarded for death or injury. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate relief to injured workers regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA however, in contrast demands that claimants prove that their railroad company was at least partly responsible for their injuries.
FELA also permits 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 the calculation of damages. A worker may receive up to 80% of their weekly average wage, as well as medical expenses, as well as a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also provide compensation for discomfort and pain.
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 death or injury. This is a more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This requirement is a result of the FELA's past. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to enhance 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 use 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 address employers' inability to protect their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has suffered an injury while on the job it is essential to seek legal advice as soon as you can. The best method to start is to reach out to the BLET-approved Legal Counsel (DLC). 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 any injuries or deaths they suffer on the job. The law was passed in 1920 to protect seamen who risk their lives and limb on the high seas and other navigable waters, because they aren't covered by workers' compensation laws like those that cover land-based workers. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which covers railroad workers, and was designed to meet the specific requirements of maritime workers.
The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum of lost wages for injured workers and provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. In addition, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their death or injury was directly caused by an employer's negligent conduct. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to seek compensation for unspecified damages including the pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.
A claim for compensation by a seaman under the Jones Act may be brought in either a state or
federal employers’ liability court. Plaintiffs in a suit brought under the Jones Act have the right to a jury trial. This is a distinct approach than most workers' compensation laws which are usually legal and do not give 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 whether a seaman's contribution to his or his own injury was subject to a more rigorous standard of evidence than the standard of proof in FELA cases. The Court held that the lower courts were right in determining that a seaman's role in his own accident has to be shown to have directly contributed to the injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injuries. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the court's instructions to the jury were erroneous in that they instructed the jury to determine Norfolk responsible only for any negligence directly contributing to the victim's injury. Norfolk claimed that the standard of causation should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
FELA Vs. Safety Appliance Act
Unlike workers' compensation laws, the
federal railroad Employers' Liability Act allows railroad employees to sue their employers directly for negligence leading to injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. This enables them to receive compensation for their injuries as well as support their families following an accident. The FELA that was enacted in 1908, was an acknowledgment of the inherent hazards of the work. It also set up standardized liability requirements.
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 locomotives to tracks, switches and other safety equipment. To be successful an injured worker must prove that their employer violated their duty of responsibility by failing to provide them with a safe working environment and that the injury was the direct result of this failure.
This requirement may be a challenge for some workers, especially when a piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why having a lawyer who has experience in FELA cases can be helpful. A lawyer who knows the safety requirements for railroaders, as well as the regulations that govern these requirements, can help strengthen the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal base.
Some railroad laws that can aid the worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws are referred to as "railway statutes" and require that rail corporations, and in certain instances, their agents (like managers, supervisors or company executives) must follow these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. Infractions to these laws can be considered negligence by itself, which means that a violation of one of these rules is sufficient to support an injury claim under FELA.
When an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any another railroad device isn't installed correctly or is defective it is a typical instance of a railroad law violation. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and when an employee is injured due to the incident they could be entitled to compensation. The law provides that the claim of the plaintiff could be reduced if they were responsible in any way to the injury (even if it is minimal).
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a series of federal laws which allow railroad workers and their families to recover significant damages for injuries they that they sustain while working. This includes compensation for loss of earnings and benefits, including medical expenses, disability payments, and funeral expenses. Additionally when an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim may be filed for punitive damages. This is a way to penalize the railroad for negligent acts and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar behavior.
Congress approved FELA in 1908 due to public outrage over the appalling rate of accidents and fatalities on railroads.