Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Workers in high-risk industries who are injured are usually protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act, for example, protects railroad workers.
To be able to claim damages under FELA the worker must prove their injury was caused at the very least partly due to negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA vs. Workers' Compensation
There are some differences between workers' compensation and FELA while both laws offer protection to employees. These differences are related to the process of claiming as well as fault assessment and the types of damages that are awarded in the event of injury or death. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad's employer is at least partially responsible for their injuries.
Additionally, FELA allows workers to sue federal courts instead of the state's workers' compensation system and provides the option of a jury trial. It also establishes specific rules for the determination of damages. A worker can receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage plus medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living allowance. Additionally the FELA suit may include additional compensation for pain and suffering.
For a worker to succeed in a FELA case they must prove that negligence by the railroad played at least a role in the injury or death. This is a more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to improve rail safety by permitting injured workers to claim damages.
As a result of over a century of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to adopt and deploy safer equipment, but the railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops remain some of the most dangerous places to work. This makes FELA important for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing employers' failures to safeguard their employees.
It is essential to seek legal counsel as soon as you can if you are a railway worker who has been injured at work. Contacting a BLET authorized legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to begin. Click here 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 fatalities during work. It was enacted in 1920 to ensure that seamen are protected from risking their lives and limbs on the high seas and other navigable waters because they aren't covered by the laws on workers' compensation 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 unique requirements of maritime workers.
Unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum amount of an injured worker's lost wages Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in cases that involve employer negligence. Additionally to this, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injuries or deaths were directly caused by an employer's negligent actions. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for unspecified damages including future and past suffering and pain in the past and future, loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.
A claim for compensation by a seaman under the Jones Act may be brought in a federal or state court. In a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a jury trial. This is a distinct approach than most workers' compensation laws, which are generally statutory and do not afford 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 higher standard of proof than the standard for evidence in FELA cases. The Court decided that the lower courts were correct when they determined that the seaman's involvement in his own accident must be shown as having directly caused his or her injury.
Sorrell received US$1.5 million as compensation for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous as they instructed the jury to find Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to the victim's injury. Norfolk claimed that the standard of causation should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
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 major distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. This allows them to be compensated for their injuries and also to maintain their families after an accident. fela lawsuits was passed in 1908 to recognize the inherent dangers of the job and to establish uniform liability standards for companies who operate railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe work environment for their employees, including the use of well-maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from trains and cars to switches, tracks, and other safety gear. In order for an injured worker to succeed in a claim they must show that their employer acted in breach of their duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment and that the injury occurred as directly caused by the failure.
This requirement may be a challenge for some workers, particularly when a piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why having a lawyer who has experience in FELA cases can help. A lawyer who understands the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements, can strengthen a worker's legal case by providing a solid legal foundation.
The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that can strengthen the worker's FELA claim. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and require that rail corporations, and in certain cases their agents (like managers, supervisors or executives of companies) must comply with these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. Infractions to these laws could be considered negligence in and of themselves, which means that a violation is sufficient to justify a claim for injury under the FELA.
A common example of a railroad statute violation is when an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't properly installed or is defective. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured as a result the employee may be entitled to compensation. The law provides that the claim of the plaintiff may be reduced if they contributed in any way to the injury (even when the injury is not severe).
FELA vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad employees and their family members to recover substantial damages if they get injured on the job. This includes compensation for loss of earnings and benefits, such as medical costs as well as disability benefits and funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages may also be claimed. This is to penalize the railroad and dissuade other railroads from engaging in similar actions.
Congress passed FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage at the alarming rate of fatalities and accidents on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad employees to sue their employers when they suffered injuries at work. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without adequate financial support during the time that they could not work because of their injuries or the negligence of the railroad.
Under the FELA, railroad workers who are injured may file a claim for damages in federal or state courts. The law eliminated defenses like The Fellow Servant Doctrine and assumption of risk, and replaced them with the concept of comparative fault. The law determines a railroader's share of responsibility for an accident by comparing their actions to those of their coworkers. The law also allows for a jury trial.
If a railroad company violates one of the federal railroad safety statutes like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. The railroad does not need to prove negligence or the fact that it caused an accident. It is also possible to file a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured by exposure to diesel exhaust fumes.
If you are a railroad employee who has suffered an injury or injured, you must immediately contact an experienced lawyer for railroad injuries. A good lawyer will be able to assist you in submitting your claim and obtaining the most benefits possible in the time you are not working due to the injury.