Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
If workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are generally protected by laws that require employers to higher safety standards. Federal Employers' Liability Act is one example. fela claims protects railroad employees.
To claim damages under the FELA the plaintiff must demonstrate that their injury was at a minimum, caused by the negligence of the employer.
Workers' Compensation vs. FELA
There are differences between workers compensation and FELA although both laws offer protection to employees. These differences are related to the process of claiming, fault assessment and types of damages awarded in instances of death or injury. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate relief to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA on the other hand requires claimants to prove that their railroad company was at a minimum partially responsible for their injuries.
FELA also allows workers to sue federal courts in lieu of the state workers' compensation system and provides a trial by jury. It also sets specific rules for determining damages. For example workers can be awarded compensation up to 80% of their average weekly salary, in addition to medical expenses and an affordable cost of living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also provide compensation for pain and discomfort.
To be successful in a FELA claim, a worker must prove that the railroad's negligence was a factor in the injury or death. This is a much higher standard than what is required to be successful in a claim under workers compensation. This is a consequence of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA in an effort to increase safety on the rails by permitting workers to sue for substantial damages if they were injured during their employment.
Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for over a century, they still use dangerous equipment and tracks for trains, as well as in their yards, machine shops, and other work areas. This is what makes FELA essential for ensuring the safety of all railway workers and taking action against employers' inability to safeguard their employees.
If you are a railway employee who has suffered an injury while on the job it is essential that you seek legal advice as quickly as you can. Contacting a BLET-approved 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 a federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers in the event of injuries and deaths. The Jones Act was passed in 1920 as a means to safeguard sailors who put their lives at risk on the high seas and other navigable waters. They are not covered by workers' compensation laws unlike workers on land. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which covers railroad workers, and was specifically designed to meet the unique needs of maritime employees.
The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws which restrict the amount of compensation for negligence to the maximum amount of lost wages for injured workers and provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that an employer's negligence caused their injury or death. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers to seek compensation for unspecified damages like the past and present pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.
A claim against a seaman under the Jones Act can be brought in an state court or a federal court. Plaintiffs in a suit brought under the Jones Act have the right to a trial by jury. This is a fundamentally different method than the majority of 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 determine whether the contribution of a seaman to his or his own injury was subject to a higher standard of evidence than the standard of proof in FELA cases. The Court held that lower courts were correct when they ruled that the seaman had to prove that his contribution to his accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell was awarded 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 as they instructed the jury to find Norfolk responsible only for any negligence directly contributing to the victim's 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
The Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that led to injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. This allows workers to receive compensation for their injuries and also to support their families following an accident. The FELA was passed in 1908 in recognition of the inherent dangers associated with the work and to establish uniform liability standards for companies that operate railroads.
FELA requires that railroads provide a safe work environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and locomotives to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. In order for an injured worker to prevail in a claim they must show that their employer violated their duty of care by not providing a safe work environment and that the injury occurred as a direct result of that negligence.
This requirement can be a challenge for some workers, particularly when a defective piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why an attorney with expertise in FELA cases can be helpful. A lawyer who understands the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements can strengthen the legal case of a worker by giving a solid legal basis.
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 known as "railway statues," require that rail corporations, and in some instances, their agents (such as managers, supervisors or company executives) adhere to these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. Infractions to these laws could be considered to be negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is sufficient to support a claim for injury under the FELA.
If an automatic coupler grab iron, or any other device for railroads is not installed properly or is damaged This is a common example of a railroad law violation. This is an obvious violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and if an employee is hurt because of it, they may be entitled to compensation. However, the law stipulates that if a plaintiff contributed to their injury in any way (even if minimal) the claim could be reduced.
FELA Vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws that allow railroad workers and their families to recover substantial damages for injuries sustained during work. This includes the compensation for lost earnings and benefits like disability payments, medical expenses and funeral costs. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be claimed. This is to punish the railroad and deter other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.
Congress passed FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage over the appalling rate of fatalities and accidents on railroads. Prior to FELA, there was no legal mechanism for railroad workers to sue their employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Railroad workers injured and their families were often left without financial support during the time that they could not work because of their injuries or the negligence of the railroad.
Injured railroad workers can bring claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The law replaced defenses such as the Fellow Servant Doctrine, or the assumption of risk with an approach based on comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's share of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing their actions with those of his coworkers. The law also permits an open trial before a jury.
If a railroad carrier violates a federal railroad safety statute like The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is strictly liable for any injuries that result. It is not necessary for the railroad to prove that it was negligent or that it was a contributing to the accident. You can also make a claim for injuries caused by diesel exhaust fumes under the Boiler Inspection Act.
If you have been injured on the job as a railroad worker you must contact a seasoned railroad injury lawyer immediately. A qualified lawyer can assist you file your claim and obtain the maximum amount of compensation during the time you are not able to work because of your injury.