Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
In high-risk industries, workers who are injured are usually protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act is one example. It protects railroad workers.
In order to be entitled to damages under FELA workers must prove their injury was caused at least in part by negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA vs. Workers' Compensation
There are differences between workers' compensation and FELA, even though both laws offer protection to employees. These differences are related to the claims process, fault evaluation and the types of damages awarded for death or injury. Workers' compensation law provides rapid assistance to injured workers regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants prove that their railroad employer is at least partially responsible for their injuries.
FELA also permits plaintiffs to sue federal courts instead of the state workers' compensation system and provides a trial by jury. It also provides specific rules for determining damage. For instance workers can be awarded compensation up to 80 percent of their weekly wage, plus medical expenses and an appropriate cost of living allowance. A FELA lawsuit could also include compensation for pain and discomfort.
To win a FELA claim, a worker must demonstrate that the railroad's negligence was at least a factor in the resulting injury or death. This is a higher requirement than what is required for a successful workers compensation claim. This is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA in order to improve safety on the rails by permitting workers to sue for substantial damages when they were injured during their employment.
In the wake of more than 100 years of FELA litigation, railway companies now regularly implement safer equipment, but the trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops are still one of the most hazardous work environments. This is what makes FELA important for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing the failures of employers to protect their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has suffered an injury in the course of work it is essential to seek legal advice as quickly as possible. The best way to start is by contacting a BLET-approved Legal Counsel (DLC). Click here to locate the DLC firm in your area.
fela accident attorney vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is a federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers for work-related injuries and deaths. 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 like those for land-based workers. It was modeled on the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) which is a law that covers railroad employees. It was also tailored to meet the needs of maritime workers.
Contrary to the laws governing workers' compensation which limit the recovery for negligence to a maximum of the injured worker's lost wages, Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in cases that involve employer negligence. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that their employer's negligence led to their death or injury. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to seek compensation for unspecified damages like the suffering and pain, as well as future loss of earning capacity as well as mental distress, for example.
A claim by a seaman under the Jones Act may be brought in either a state or federal court. The plaintiffs in a suit filed under the Jones Act have the right to a jury trial. This is a completely new approach to the workers' compensation laws. Most of these laws are statutory in nature and do not give injured workers the right to a trial by jury.
In the case Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was requested to clarify whether a seaman's contribution to their own injury was subject to a stricter evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court ruled that the lower courts were correct in their decision that a seaman's contribution to his own accident must be proved as having directly caused his or her injury.
Sorrell received US$1.5 million in compensation for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the trial court's instructions to the jury were not correct, since they instructed the jury to decide to hold Norfolk responsible only for any negligence directly contributing to his or her injury. Norfolk also argued that the standard for causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be the exact same.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
The
Federal railroad Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that caused injuries. This is an important distinction for injured workers working in high-risk fields. This enables them to receive compensation for their injuries and also to take care of their families following an accident. The FELA was enacted in 1908 to recognize the inherent dangers of the work and to establish uniform liability standards for businesses who operate railroads.
fela settlements requires railroads to provide a secure working 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 equipment. In order for an injured worker to prevail in a lawsuit they must show that their employer violated their duty of care by failing to provide a reasonably safe work environment and that the injury was the direct result of the failure.
Some workers may find it difficult to meet this requirement, particularly in the event that a defective piece of equipment is responsible for causing an accident. An attorney with experience in FELA claims can be of great assistance. An attorney who understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can enhance a worker's case by providing a strong legal foundation.
The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that could help strengthen the worker's FELA claim. These laws, also referred to as "railway statues," require that rail companies and, in certain instances, their agents (such as supervisors, managers or company executives) adhere to these rules to ensure the safety their employees. Violating these statutes can constitute negligence in and of itself, meaning that a violation of any one of these rules is enough to justify an injury claim under FELA.
When an automatic coupler, grab iron or another railroad device isn't installed correctly or is defective, this is a common example of a railroad law violation. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured as a result, they may be entitled to compensation. However, the law also states that if the plaintiff was a contributor to the injury in some way (even even if it was a minor cause) the claim could be reduced.
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a set of federal laws that permit railroad workers and their families to recover significant damages for injuries they sustained while working. This includes compensation for loss of earnings and benefits, including medical expenses or disability payments, as well as funeral expenses. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be claimed. This is to penalize the railroad for negligent acts and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar behavior.
Congress adopted FELA in response to public outrage in 1908 at the shocking rate of fatalities and accidents on railroads.