10 Wrong Answers To Common Federal Employers Questions: Do You Know Which Answers
Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Workers in high-risk industries who are injured are typically protected by laws which hold employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance are covered by the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To claim damages under the FELA the victim 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 while both laws provide protection to employees. These differences relate to claims processes, fault evaluation and the types of damages that are awarded for death or injury. Workers' compensation law offers quick relief to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA however, in contrast, requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad employer was at least partially accountable for their injuries.
FELA also allows plaintiffs to sue federal courts in lieu of the state workers' compensation system, and provides a trial by jury. It also establishes specific guidelines for determining damages. A worker may receive up to 80% their weekly average wage, as well as medical expenses, as well as a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. A FELA lawsuit may also provide compensation for pain and discomfort.
To win a FELA claim the worker must show that the railroad's negligence was at least an element in the cause of injury or death. This is a much higher standard than what is required for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This is a part of FELA’s history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to enhance rail safety by permitting injured workers to claim damages.
In the wake of more than a century of FELA litigation, railway companies now regularly adopt and deploy safer equipment, but trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops are among the most dangerous places to work. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers, and to correct employers' negligence in protecting their employees.
If you are a railway worker who has suffered an injury on the job it is essential to seek legal advice as soon as you can. The best way to begin is to contact a BLET-approved Legal Counsel (DLC). Follow this link to find an approved DLC firm near you.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is a federal law that permits seamen to sue their employers for on-the-job injuries and deaths. 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, as they are not covered by workers' compensation laws like those for 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.
In contrast to workers' compensation laws which limit the recovery for negligence to a maximum amount of an injured worker's lost wages, Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in the event of employer negligence. Additionally, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove their injuries or deaths were directly caused by the negligence of an employer's actions. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers to seek compensation for unspecified damages including past and present pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity, mental distress, etc.
A seaman's claim under the Jones Act may be brought in either a federal or state court. In a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a revolutionary approach to workers' compensation laws. Most of these laws are statutory and do not give injured workers the right to a trial before a jury.
In the case Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was asked to clarify if a seaman’s contribution to their own injuries was subjected to a higher evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court ruled the lower courts were correct in determining that a seaman must prove that his role in the accident directly caused his 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 incorrect, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was only accountable for the negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk claimed that the causation standard should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
In contrast to the laws governing workers' compensation, 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 working in high-risk fields. This allows them to receive compensation for their injuries and to support their families following an accident. The FELA was passed in 1908 to acknowledge the inherent dangers of the job and to establish uniform liability standards for businesses who operate railroads.
FELA requires that railroads provide a safe work environment for their employees. This includes the use of repaired and maintained equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. To be successful an injured worker must show that their employer did not fulfill their obligation of care by failing to provide them with a safe working environment and that their injury resulted directly from this failure.
This rule can be difficult to meet for some workers, particularly when a defective piece of equipment is involved in an accident. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims can be a great help. Having an attorney that understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can improve the case of a worker, 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 are referred to 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 protect their employees. Infractions to these laws can be considered negligence by itself, which means that a violation of one of these rules is enough to justify an injury claim under FELA.
If an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any other railroad device is not installed correctly or is damaged, this is a common instance of a lawful railroad violation. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and if an employee is hurt as a result they could be entitled to compensation. The law states that the claim of the plaintiff could be reduced if they contributed in any way to the injury (even when the injury is not severe).
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a set of federal laws that permit railroad employees and their families to collect substantial damages from injuries caused on the job. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits like disability payments, medical expenses and funeral costs. In addition, if an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim could be filed for punitive damages. This is to penalize railroads for their negligence and deter other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.
Congress adopted FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage at the alarming rate of fatalities and accidents on railroads. Before FELA there was no legal basis for railroad workers to sue employers for injuries they sustained in the course of their work. 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.
Railroad workers who are injured can bring claims for damages under FELA in either state or federal court. The act abolished defenses such as The Fellow Servant Doctrine and assumption of risk, and replaced them with a system of comparative blame. The act determines a railroader's part of the blame for an accident by comparing their actions to those of their coworkers. The law also permits a jury trial.
If a railroad company is found to be in violation of 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 cause of an accident. It is also possible to make a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust fumes.
If you've been injured while working as a railroad employee, you should consult a skilled railroad injury lawyer immediately. A good lawyer can assist you in submitting your claim and receiving the highest amount of benefits in the time you aren't able to work due to your injury.
