Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
When workers in high-risk sectors are injured, they are generally protected by laws that hold employers to higher safety standards. Federal Employers' Liability Act for instance, protects railroad workers.
To be fela settlements to claim damages under FELA the worker must prove their injury was caused partially due to negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA Vs. Workers' Compensation
While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that offer protection to employees, there are significant differences between them. These differences relate to the process of submitting claims as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages awarded in the event of death or injury. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate relief to injured workers, regardless of who was responsible for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad's employer is at the very least partly responsible for their injuries.
FELA also allows plaintiffs to sue federal courts on behalf of the state workers' compensation system and provides a trial by jury. It also establishes specific rules for the determination of damages. A worker can receive up to 80% their average weekly salary, plus medical expenses, and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. A FELA lawsuit may also include compensation for discomfort and pain.
In order to win a FELA claim, a worker must demonstrate that the railroad's negligence was at the very least a factor in the resulting injury or death. This is a higher requirement than what is required for a successful workers compensation claim. This requirement is a product of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to improve rail safety by permitting injured workers to sue for damages.
Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for over a century, they still employ dangerous equipment and tracks for trains, as well as in their yards, machine shops, and other workplaces. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to tackle employers' failures in protecting their employees.
It is important that you seek legal advice as soon as you can if you are a railway worker who has been injured while at work. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click here to find a BLET-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. The Jones Act was passed in 1920 as a means to protect sailors who are at risk on the high seas and other navigable waters. They are not covered under workers' compensation laws, unlike employees who work on land. It was modeled on the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) which was which protects railroad workers. It was also crafted to meet the needs of maritime employees.
The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws, which restrict the amount of negligence compensation to the maximum amount of lost wages for injured workers, provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. Additionally, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their death or injury was directly caused by an employer's negligent behavior. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers to recover damages that are not specified including the past and present suffering and pain, as well as future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.
A seaman's claim under the Jones Act may be brought in a federal or state court. The plaintiffs in a suit filed under the Jones Act have the right to a trial by jury. This is a completely new approach to workers' compensation laws. The majority of these laws are statutory in nature and do not give 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 more rigorous standard of proof than the standard for proof in FELA cases. The Court ruled the lower courts were right when they ruled that the seaman had to prove that his involvement in the accident directly caused his 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 wrong, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was solely accountable for the negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk claimed that the standard of causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be exactly the same.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
Contrary to laws regarding 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 in high-risk sectors. After an accident, they will be compensated and maintain their families. The FELA was enacted in 1908 to acknowledge the inherent dangers of the work and to establish uniform liability standards for businesses who operate railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a secure working environment for their employees, including the use of well-maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. To be successful, an injured worker must demonstrate that their employer has breached their obligation to them by not providing them with a reasonably safe working environment and that their injury resulted directly from this failure.
This requirement can be difficult to meet for some workers, especially when a piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why an attorney with expertise in FELA cases can be of assistance. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements, can help strengthen the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal base.
Certain railroad laws that could help the worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws, referred to as "railway statues," require that rail corporations, and in some cases their agents (such as supervisors, managers, or company executives) must adhere to these rules to ensure the safety of their employees. The violation of these statutes could be considered to be negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is enough to justify a claim for injuries under the FELA.
A common instance of railroad statute violations is when an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't correctly installed or is defective. This is a clear violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and when an employee is injured due to the incident they could be entitled to compensation. However, the law also stipulates that if the plaintiff contributed to the injury in any way (even if minimal) 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 the loss of earnings and benefits, like medical expenses as well as disability benefits and funeral expenses. Additionally when an injury results in permanent impairment or death, a claim may be brought for punitive damages. This is to penalize the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging similar conduct.
Congress passed FELA as a response to the public's outrage in 1908 over the shocking number of deaths and accidents on railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue employers when they were hurt while on the job. Railroad workers injured in the line of duty and their families were often left without financial aid during the period they were unable to work because of their injuries or negligence on the part of the railroad.
Railroad workers who are injured can bring claims for damages under FELA in either state or federal court. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or assumption of risk by establishing an approach based on the concept of comparative fault. This means that the railroad worker's share of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing their actions to those of coworkers. The law allows for an investigation by jury.
If a railroad carrier violates one of the federal railroad safety statutes like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. The railroad is not required to prove negligence or that it contributed to an accident. It is also possible to make an action under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust fumes.
If you are a railroad employee who has suffered an injury and you need to immediately seek out an experienced railroad injury lawyer. A reputable attorney will be able to assist you in submitting your claim and receiving the highest amount of benefits during the time that you aren't working because of the injury.