Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Workers in high-risk industries 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 the worker 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 provide protection to employees, there are some significant differences between them. These distinctions are related to the process of claiming as well as fault assessment and the types of damages awarded in cases of injury or death. Workers' compensation law provides immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants prove that their railroad's employer is at least partly responsible for their injuries.
In addition, FELA allows workers to sue federal courts, instead of the state's worker compensation system. It also allows the option of a jury trial. It also has specific guidelines for the determination of damages. A worker could receive up to 80% of their average weekly salary, together with medical expenses, as well as a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. Moreover the FELA suit could also include compensation for pain and suffering.
To be successful in a FELA claim, a worker must demonstrate that the railroad's negligence was a factor in the injury or death. This is a higher standard than that required to win a workers' compensation claim. This is a consequence of FELA's history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by allowing injured workers to sue for damages.
In the wake of more than 100 years of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to implement safer equipment, however the trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops remain one of the most hazardous workplaces. This makes FELA crucial for ensuring safety of all railway workers as well as addressing the failures of employers to protect their employees.
If you are a railway employee who has been injured on the job it is imperative that you seek legal advice as quickly as you can. The best method to start is to contact the BLET designated Legal Counsel (DLC). Follow this link to find an approved DLC firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is federal law that permits seafarers to sue their employer for any injuries or deaths they suffer on the job. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 as a means to safeguard sailors who risk their lives on the high seas or other navigable waters. fela claims are not covered under workers' compensation laws, unlike workers on land. It was closely modeled after the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which protects railroad workers, and was designed to meet the unique requirements of maritime workers.
The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that restrict the amount of negligence compensation 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 their employer's negligence caused their death or injury. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers to recover damages that are not specified, such as the past and present suffering and pain, as well as future loss of earning capacity as well as mental distress, for example.
A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought either in an state court or a federal court. In a case brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a distinct approach than most workers' compensation laws which are usually statutory and do not afford injured employees the right to a trial by jury.
In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell, the US Supreme Court was asked to clarify whether a seaman's contribution to his or his own injury was subject to a higher standard of proof than the standard for evidence in FELA cases. The Court decided that the lower courts were right in determining that a seaman's contribution to his own accident must be shown to have directly caused his or her injury.
Sorrell received US$1.5 million in compensation for his injury. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer claimed that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were incorrect in that they told the jury that Norfolk was solely accountable for the negligence that directly 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
In contrast to the laws governing workers' compensation and 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 in high-risk industries. This enables workers to receive compensation for their injuries and to maintain their families after an accident. The FELA that was enacted in 1908 was an acknowledgement of the inherent hazards of the work. It also set up uniform liability standards.
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 switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. 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 resulted directly from this failure.
Some workers may have difficulty to meet this requirement, especially in the event that a defective piece of equipment is involved in causing an accident. This is why a lawyer who has expertise in FELA cases can help. A lawyer who is knowledgeable of the specific safety requirements for railroaders as well as the regulations that govern them can enhance the case of a worker by establishing a solid legal foundation.
Certain railroad laws that could help workers' FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and mandate that rail corporations, and in some instances their agents (like managers, supervisors or executives of companies) must follow these rules in order to protect their employees. The violation of these statutes could be considered negligence in and of themselves, which means that a violation is sufficient to support a claim for injuries under the FELA.
An example of a railroad statute violation is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't correctly installed or is defective. If an employee is injured due to this, they could be entitled to compensation. However, the law stipulates that if the plaintiff contributed to their injury in any way (even even if it was a minor cause) the amount they claim will be reduced.
FELA Vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad employees and their family members to claim substantial damages if they suffer injuries while on the job. This includes the compensation for lost earnings and benefits such as disability payments, medical expenses and funeral expenses. Additionally in the event that an injury results in permanent impairment or death, a claim can be filed for punitive damages. This is intended to punish the railroad for negligent acts and deter other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.
Congress adopted FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage over the appalling rate of fatalities and accidents on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal avenue for railroad workers to sue their employers for injuries they sustained on the job. Railroad workers who were injured and their families were often left without financial support during the time that they could not work due to their injury or the negligence of the railroad.
Railroad workers who are injured can bring claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or assumption of risk by establishing the concept of the concept of comparative fault. The act determines a railroader's share of responsibility for an accident by comparing their actions to those of their coworkers. The law allows for the jury to decide on the case.
If a railroad operator violates a federal railroad safety statute, such as The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is solely responsible for any injuries that result from it. The railroad is not required to prove negligence or that it contributed to 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 employee who has suffered an injury and you need to immediately seek out an experienced railroad injury lawyer. A good lawyer can assist you in filing your claim and obtaining the maximum benefits available for the time you aren't working because of your injury.