Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
When workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are generally protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for example are covered by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To recover damages under the FELA, a victim must be able to prove that their injuries were at least partially caused due to the negligence of their employer.
Workers' Compensation vs. FELA
There are differences between workers compensation and FELA while both laws provide protection to employees. These differences are related to the claims process as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages that are awarded for injury or death. Workers' compensation law gives immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who was responsible for the accident. FELA on the other hand, requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad employer was at least partly accountable for their injuries.
FELA also allows 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 damages. For instance, a worker can receive compensation up to 80 percent of their weekly wage, plus medical expenses and a reasonable cost of living allowance. Additionally an FELA suit could include compensation for pain and suffering.
To be successful in a FELA claim, a worker must prove that the railroad's negligence was an element in the cause of injury or death. This is a higher standard than what is required to be successful in a claim under workers compensation. This is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA in an effort to increase the safety of rail lines by permitting workers to sue for large damages if they were injured during their employment.
As a result of over a century of FELA litigation railway companies today regularly adopt and use safer equipment, however the railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are still one of the most hazardous workplaces. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers, and to address employers' inability to protect their employees.
It is essential to seek legal advice as soon as you can when you are a railway worker who has been injured while at work. The best method to start is to contact the designated Legal Counselor from BLET (DLC). Click this link to find a BLET-approved DLC firm near you.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law that allows seafarers to sue their employers for injuries or deaths on the job. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 as a way to protect sailors who risk their lives on the high seas and other navigable waters. They are not covered by workers' compensation laws, unlike land-based employees. It was modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which covers railroad workers. It was also designed to satisfy the needs of maritime workers.
Unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of compensation for negligence to a maximum of an 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 also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for unspecified damages such as past and future suffering and pain in the past and future, loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.
A claim against a seaman in the Jones Act can be brought in an state court or a federal court. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act have the right to a trial by jury. This is a revolutionary approach to the laws governing workers' compensation. The majority of these laws are statutes and do not give injured workers the right to a trial by jury.
In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was requested to clarify whether a seaman's involvement in their own injury was subject to a more strict proof standard than in FELA claims. The Court ruled the lower courts were right when they ruled that a seaman must prove that his role in the accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injury. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer claimed that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were wrong and they had instructed the jury that Norfolk was only accountable for the negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk argued that the causation standard should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
Unlike workers' compensation laws 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 who work in high-risk industries. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and support their families. The FELA was enacted in 1908 to recognize the inherent dangers associated with the work and to establish standard liability requirements 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 tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. To be successful an injured worker must demonstrate that their employer has did not fulfill their obligation of care by not providing them with a reasonably safe working environment, and that their injury resulted directly from this failure.
Some workers may find it difficult to comply with this requirement, particularly in the event that a defective piece of equipment is involved in causing an accident. An attorney with experience in FELA claims can be of great assistance. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements can help bolster a worker's legal case by giving a solid legal basis.
Some railroad laws that may help a 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 railroad corporations, and in some cases their agents (like managers, supervisors or company executives) must comply with these rules to protect their employees. The violation of these statutes could be considered to be negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is sufficient to support a claim of injuries under the FELA.
An example of railroad statute violations is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron is not correctly installed or is defective. This is an obvious violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured as a result the employee may be entitled to compensation. However, the law stipulates that if a plaintiff contributed to the injury in any way (even even if it was a minor cause) the amount they claim will be reduced.
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad workers and their family members to claim substantial damages if they are injured on the job. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits such as medical expenses, disability payments and funeral costs. In addition in the event that an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim may be brought for punitive damages. fela accident attorney is to penalize the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.
Congress adopted FELA in 1908 in response to public outrage over the appalling rate of accidents and fatalities on railroads. Prior to FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were frequently left without financial assistance during the time they were unable to work because of their injuries or the negligence of the railroad.
Under the FELA railroad workers who suffer injuries can seek damages in state or federal courts. The act eliminated defenses such as The Fellow Servant Doctrine and the assumption of risk and replaced them with a system of comparative blame. This means that a railroad worker's share of the responsibility for an accident is determined by comparing his or her actions to those of his coworkers. The law also permits the possibility of a jury trial.
If a railroad operator violates a federal railroad safety statute like The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is strictly liable for any injuries resulting from the violation. This does not require the railroad to prove that it was negligent or that it was a contributing to the cause of an accident. It is also possible to bring an action under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured due to exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.
If you have been injured while working as a railroad employee, you should contact an experienced railroad injury lawyer immediately. A good lawyer can help you file a claim and receive the most benefits in the event that you are not able to work because of your injury.