Federal Employers: It s Not As Difficult As You Think
Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
In high-risk industries, workers who suffer injuries are usually protected by laws which hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act, for example, protects railroad employees.
In order to recover damages under FELA workers must prove that their injury was caused partially due to negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA against. Workers' Compensation
There are differences between workers' compensation and FELA, even though both laws provide protection for employees. These distinctions are related to claims processes, fault evaluation and the types of damages that are awarded for death or injury. Workers' compensation laws offer immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA however, on the other hand demands that claimants prove that their railroad company was at a minimum partially responsible for their injuries.
In addition, FELA allows workers to sue federal courts, instead of the state's workers compensation system. It also allows the option of a jury trial. It also establishes specific guidelines for the calculation of damages. A worker could receive up to 80% their weekly average wage, plus medical expenses, as well as an appropriate cost-of-living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also include compensation for pain and discomfort.
In order for a worker to be successful in a FELA case, they must show that negligence by the railroad played at least a part in the death or injury. This is a higher requirement than that required for a successful workers compensation claim. This is a consequence of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to seek damages.
Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for over 100 years, they use dangerous equipment and tracks for trains, as well as in their machine shops, yards, and other workplaces. This makes FELA crucial for ensuring safety of all railway workers and addressing employers' failures to safeguard their employees.
If you are a railway worker who was injured in the course of work it is imperative that you seek legal advice as soon as possible. Contacting a BLET authorized legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Follow this link to find an approved DLC firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law that permits seamen to sue their employers for any injuries or deaths they suffer while on the job. The law was passed in 1920 to ensure that seamen are protected from risking their lives and limb on the high seas and other navigable waters, since they are not covered by the laws on workers' compensation like those for employees on land. It was modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which was which protects railroad employees. It was also crafted to accommodate the needs of maritime employees.
The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of negligence compensation to the amount of lost wages for an injured worker, provides unlimited liability in maritime cases involving negligence by employers. In addition, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injury or death was directly caused by an employer's negligent conduct. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover unspecified damages including the pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity as well as mental distress, for example.
A suit for a seaman under the Jones Act can be brought either in the state court or in a federal court. The plaintiffs in a suit filed under the Jones Act have the right to a jury trial. This is a fundamentally different approach to the majority of workers' compensation laws which are usually statutory and do not afford injured employees the right to a jury trial.
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 subject to a stricter evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court ruled that the lower courts were right in their decision that the seaman's involvement in his own accident must be proved to have directly caused his or her injury.
Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million in compensation for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the court's instructions to the jury were erroneous, since they instructed the jury to find Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to his or her injury. Norfolk argued that the causation standard should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
FELA vs. Safety Appliance Act
In contrast to the laws governing workers' compensation in contrast, the Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad employees to sue their employers directly for negligence that led to injuries. This is an important distinction for injured workers who work in high-risk sectors. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA was passed in 1908 to recognize the inherent dangers of the job and to set up standard liability requirements for companies that manage railroads.
FELA requires that railroads offer a safe working environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly 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 show that their employer breached their obligation to them by failing to provide them with a reasonably safe working environment and that their injury was the direct result of the failure.
Some employees may find it difficult to meet this requirement, especially if a defective piece equipment can be the cause of an accident. An attorney with experience in FELA claims is a great resource. Having an attorney that understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can improve a worker's case by establishing a solid legal basis.
The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that can strengthen workers' FELA claim. These laws, referred to as "railway statues," require that rail corporations, and in some cases their agents (such as supervisors, managers or company executives) adhere to these regulations to ensure the safety of their employees. The violation of these statutes could be considered to be negligence in and of themselves, which means that a violation is enough to support a claim of injuries under the FELA.
An example of a railroad statute violation is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron is not properly installed or is defective. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and if an employee is hurt as a result, they may be entitled to compensation. The law stipulates that the claim of the plaintiff may be reduced if they were responsible in any way to the injury (even if it is minimal).
FELA Vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal employers’ liability laws that allows railroad workers and their family members to claim significant damages if they are injured on the job. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits such as disability payments, medical expenses and funeral costs. In addition when an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim can be made for punitive damages. This is to penalize railroads for negligent actions and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar actions.
Congress approved FELA in response to the public's anger in 1908 about the alarming rate of accidents and deaths on railroads. Prior to FELA there was no legal avenue 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 adequate financial assistance during the time they were unable work due to injuries or negligence on the part of the railroad.
Railroad workers injured in an accident can file claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine, or the assumption of risk with a system based on comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's portion of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing his actions to those of coworkers. The law permits the jury to decide on the case.
If a railroad operator violates any of the federal railroad safety laws, such as The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. It is not necessary for the railroad to prove it was negligent or that it was a cause of an accident. It is also possible to bring a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured due to exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.
If you are a railroad worker who has suffered an injury, you should immediately contact an experienced railroad injury lawyer. A qualified lawyer can assist you file your claim and get the most benefits in the event that you are not able to work because of the injury.