Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Workers in high-risk industries who are injured are usually protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for example are covered by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To be able to claim damages under FELA workers must prove their injury was caused partly due to negligence on the part of the employer.
Workers' Compensation vs. FELA
While both workers compensation and FELA are laws that offer protection to employees, there are some significant differences between them. These distinctions are related to the claims process as well as fault assessment and the types of damages awarded in cases of injury or death. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate relief to injured workers regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad company is at the very least partially responsible for their injuries.
In addition, FELA allows workers to sue
federal employers’ courts instead of the state's worker compensation system. It also allows jurors for trials. It also establishes specific rules for determining damage. A worker could receive up to 80% of their average weekly salary, as well as medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. Furthermore an FELA suit may include additional compensation for pain and suffering.
To be successful in a FELA claim the worker must show that the railroad's negligence was at least a factor in the resulting injury or death. This is a higher standard than that required to win a workers' compensation claim. This is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to enhance rail safety by allowing injured workers to seek damages.
As a result of over 100 years of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to implement safer equipment, however the railway tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are one of the most hazardous places to work. This is what makes FELA essential for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing the failures of employers to safeguard their employees.
If you are a railway employee who has suffered an injury in the course of work, it is crucial that you seek legal advice as quickly as you can. Contacting a BLET authorized legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click this link to find an approved DLC
firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law which allows seamen to sue their employers for injuries or deaths while on the job. It was passed in 1920 to ensure that seamen are protected from risking their lives and limb on the high seas and other navigable waters, since they are not covered by workers' compensation laws similar to those that protect land-based employees. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which covers railroad workers and was specifically designed to meet the unique requirements of maritime workers.
The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that restrict the amount of negligence compensation to a maximum of lost wages for an injured worker is a law that allows unlimited liability in maritime cases involving negligence by employers. Additionally under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove their injury or death was directly resulted from an employer's negligent conduct. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for unspecified damages such as past and future pain and suffering in the past and future, loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.
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 a trial by jury. This is a fundamentally new approach to workers' compensation laws. Most of these laws are statutes and do not grant injured employees the right to trial by jury.
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 his own injury was subject to a more rigorous standard of evidence than the standard of proof in FELA cases. The Court held that lower courts were right in determining that the seaman had to prove that his role in the accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million in compensation for his injuries. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect in that they instructed the jury to determine Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to the injury. Norfolk also argued that the standard for causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be exactly the same.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
In contrast to the laws governing workers' compensation and the Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue their employers directly for negligence that led to injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. This allows workers to receive compensation for their injuries as well as take care of their families following an accident. The FELA, which was passed in 1908, was an acknowledgement of the inherent risks of the job. It also set up uniform liability standards.
FELA requires that railroads offer a safe working environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly repaired and maintained equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to tracks, switches 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 the failure.
This requirement may be a challenge for some workers, particularly when a defective piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why an attorney who has experience in FELA cases can help. A lawyer who is knowledgeable of the specific safety requirements for railroaders as well as the regulations that govern them can help the case of a worker by providing a solid legal basis.
Some railroad laws that may help 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 some cases their agents (like managers, supervisors, or executives of companies) must follow these rules to protect their employees. Violation of these laws could be considered negligence per se, meaning that a violation of any one of these rules is enough to justify a claim for injury under FELA.
When an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any another railroad device isn't installed correctly or is defective, this is a common instance of a lawful railroad violation. If an employee is injured due to this, 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 when the injury is not severe).
FELA in opposition to. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a series of federal laws that allow railroad workers and their families to collect substantial damages for injuries caused during work. This includes compensation for the loss of earnings and benefits like medical expenses as well as disability benefits and funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages can also be claimed. This is to punish the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging similar actions.
Congress approved FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage over the appalling number of fatalities and accidents on the railroads.