Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
When workers in high-risk sectors are injured, they are usually protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act for instance, protects railroad employees.
In order to recover 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.
Workers' Compensation vs. FELA
While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that offer protections to employees, there are significant differences between them. These differences are related to the process of filing claims, fault assessment and the kinds of damages that are awarded in the event of injury or death. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants show that their railroad employer is at a minimum partly responsible for their injuries.
Additionally, FELA allows workers to sue in federal court instead of the state's worker' compensation system and provides the option of a jury trial. It also sets specific rules for the determination of damages. A worker may receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage plus medical expenses, as well as a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. Furthermore, a FELA suit could also include compensation for pain and suffering.
In order for a worker to be successful in a FELA case they must prove that the railroad's negligence played at least a role in the injury or death. This is a far higher standard than that required for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This is a part of FELA’s history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by allowing injured workers to claim damages.
Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for over 100 years, they continue to employ dangerous equipment and tracks for trains, as well as in their machine shops, yards, and other work areas. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to tackle employers' negligence in protecting their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has been injured while on the job it is imperative to seek legal advice as quickly as you can. The best way to start is to contact a designated Legal Counselor from BLET (DLC). Click on this link to find a DLC firm in your region.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers for any injuries or deaths they suffer on the job. The law was passed in 1920 to ensure that seamen are protected from risking their lives and limbs on the high seas and other navigable waters since they are not covered by the laws on workers' compensation like those that cover land-based workers. It was modeled on the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) which is a law that covers railroad employees. fela law firm was also designed to meet the needs of maritime employees.
The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that restrict the amount of compensation for negligence to the maximum amount of lost wages for injured workers and provides unlimited liability in maritime cases involving negligence by employers. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that an 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 including the past and present suffering and pain, future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.
A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought in the state court or in a federal court. In a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a fundamentally new approach to the laws governing workers' compensation. Most of these laws are statutory and do not give injured workers the right to trial by jury.
In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was requested to clarify if a seaman’s contribution to their own injuries was subject to a more strict evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court held that lower courts were right when they determined the seaman had to prove that his involvement in the accident directly caused his 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 not correct in that they instructed the jury to determine Norfolk responsible only for any negligence directly contributing to the victim's injury. Norfolk asserted that the standard of causation should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
Unlike workers' compensation laws, the Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue their employers directly for negligence leading to injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA was enacted in 1908 to acknowledge the inherent dangers associated with the job and to establish uniform liability standards for companies that operate railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe workplace for their employees. This includes the use of 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 demonstrate that their employer has breached their obligation to them by not providing them with a reasonably secure working environment, and that their injury resulted directly from this failure.
This requirement may be difficult to meet for some workers, particularly when a piece of equipment is involved in an accident. An attorney with experience in FELA claims is a great resource. A lawyer who understands the safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern these requirements can help strengthen the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal foundation.
The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that could help strengthen a worker’s FELA claim. These laws, also referred to as "railway statues," require that rail companies and, in certain cases their agents (such as managers, supervisors, or company executives), comply with 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 any one of these rules is enough to justify a claim for injury under FELA.
A common illustration of railroad statute violations is when an automatic coupler or grab iron is not correctly installed or is defective. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and when an employee is injured because of it they could be entitled to compensation. The law states that the claims of the plaintiff can be reduced if they contributed 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 claim substantial damages from injuries caused during work. This includes compensation for loss of earnings and benefits, including medical expenses, disability payments, and funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be sought. This is to punish the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar behavior.
Congress passed FELA in 1908 due to public outrage over the appalling rate of fatalities and accidents on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue employers when they suffered injuries while on the job. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without financial support during the time that they could not work due to their injury or the negligence of the railroad.
Under the FELA railroad workers who are injured can make a claim for damages in state or federal courts. The law eliminated defenses such as The Fellow Servant Doctrine and the assumption of risk and replaced them with a system of comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's portion of the responsibility for an accident is determined by comparing his or her actions to those of coworkers. The law also allows for a jury trial.
If a railroad operator violates any of the federal railroad safety laws, like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is liable for all injuries that result. It is not necessary for the railroad to prove that it was negligent, or even that it was a contributory to the accident. It is also possible to bring a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured by exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.
If you are a railroad employee who has been injured and you need to immediately seek out an experienced lawyer for railroad injuries. A good lawyer can help you file a claim and get the maximum amount of compensation during the time you are in a position of no work because of the injury.