Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
In high-risk industries, workers who are injured are typically protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance are covered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To be able to claim damages under FELA workers must prove their injury was caused at the very least partially due to negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA Vs. Workers' Compensation
While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that offer protections to employees, there are a few differences between them. These differences are related to claims processes as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages awarded in the event of death or injury. Workers' compensation law gives quick relief to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants show that their railroad employer is at least partially responsible for their injuries.
FELA also permits workers to sue federal courts on behalf of the state workers' compensation system, and provides a trial by jury. It also sets specific rules for the determination of damages. A worker may receive up to 80% their weekly average wage, together with medical expenses, and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. Additionally, a FELA suit could include 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 part in the injury or death. This is a higher standard than that required to be successful in a claim under workers' compensation. This requirement is a result of the FELA's past. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to seek damages.
As a result of over a century of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to implement safer equipment, however the railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops remain some of the most dangerous places to work. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers, and to correct employers' inability to protect their employees.
It is crucial to seek legal advice as quickly as you can when you are railway worker who has been injured at work. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click here to find a DLC firm in your region.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law which allows seafarers to sue their employer for injuries or fatalities during work. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 as a way to protect sailors who put their lives at risk on the high seas and other navigable waters. They are not covered under workers' compensation laws unlike land-based employees. It was modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which is which covers railroad workers. It was also designed to meet the needs of maritime employees.
The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws, which restrict the amount of compensation for negligence to the amount of lost wages for injured workers is a law that allows unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. Additionally to this, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injuries or deaths were directly resulted from an employer's negligent conduct. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover damages that are not specified like the past and present pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.
A suit for seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought in either the state court or in a federal court. fela railroad accident lawyer in a suit brought under the Jones Act have the right to a trial by jury. This is a revolutionary approach to workers' compensation laws. Most of these laws are statutory in nature and do not grant injured employees the right to trial by jury.
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 more rigorous standard of evidence than the standard of evidence in FELA cases. The Court ruled that the lower courts were correct when they determined that a seaman's role in his own accident must be proven to have directly contributed to his or her injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million as compensation for his injury. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer asserted that the guidelines given to the jury by the trial court were not correct and they had instructed the jury that Norfolk was only responsible for the negligence that caused his 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
Contrary to laws regarding workers' compensation, the Federal Employers' Liability Act enables railroad workers to sue their employers directly for negligence that leads to injuries. This is an important distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. This enables workers to receive compensation for their injuries and to maintain their families after an accident. The FELA, which was passed in 1908 was a recognition of the inherent dangers of the work. It also set up standardized liability requirements.
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 trains and cars to tracks, switches and other safety gear. To be successful an injured worker must demonstrate that their employer has violated their duty of responsibility by not providing them with a reasonably safe working environment and that their injury was the direct result of this failure.
Some employees may find it difficult to comply with this requirement, especially if a defective piece equipment is involved in causing an accident. This is why having a lawyer with experience in FELA cases can be of assistance. A lawyer who is knowledgeable of the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can improve a worker's case by establishing a solid legal foundation.
The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that could 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 managers, supervisors, or company executives) must adhere to these regulations to ensure the safety of their employees. Violations of these statutes may be considered negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is sufficient to justify a claim for injuries under the FELA.
If an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any other device for railroads is not installed properly or is defective This is a common example of a railroad law violation. If an employee is injured as a result of this, they may be entitled to compensation. However, the law stipulates that if the plaintiff contributed to their injury in any way (even if minimal), their claim may be reduced.
FELA Vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws which allows railroad employees and their families to recover substantial damages if they are 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. Additionally in the event that an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim could be filed for punitive damages. This is to penalize the railroad for negligent acts and deter 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. Before 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 often left without adequate 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 injured may make a claim for damages in state or federal courts. The act has replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or assumption of risk by establishing a system based on the concept of comparative fault. The act determines the railroad worker's portion of the responsibility for an accident by comparing their actions with the actions of their coworkers. The law also allows for the possibility of a jury trial.
If a railroad operator violates a federal railroad safety statute, such as The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is strictly liable for any injuries resulting from the violation. This does not mean that the railroad to prove it was negligent, or even that it was a contributory to the cause of an accident. It is also possible to file a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured by exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.
If you have been injured while working as a railroad employee, you should consult a skilled railroad injury lawyer immediately. The right lawyer will be able to assist you in submitting your claim and receiving the highest amount of benefits for the time you aren't working because of your injury.