Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
Workers in high-risk industries who are injured are usually protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for example are covered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To be able to claim damages under the FELA, a victim must be able to prove that their injuries were at least partially caused by the negligence 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 claims processes as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages awarded for injury or death. Workers' compensation law offers immediate assistance to injured workers regardless of who was responsible for the accident. FELA however, in contrast demands that claimants prove that their railroad company was at least partly responsible for their injuries.
FELA also permits workers to sue federal courts on behalf of the state workers' compensation system, and allows for a trial by jury. It also sets specific rules for determining damage. A worker can receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage as well as medical expenses, and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. Additionally the FELA suit may include additional compensation for pain and suffering.
To be successful in a FELA claim the worker must show that the railroad's negligence was at least a factor in the injury or death. This is a higher level than that required to win a workers' compensation claim. This requirement is a product of FELA’s history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to claim damages.
As a result of more than 100 years of FELA litigation, railway companies now regularly adopt and deploy safer equipment, but the railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are still some of the most dangerous places to work. railroad injury fela lawyer is what makes FELA essential for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing the failures of employers to protect their employees.
It is crucial to seek legal counsel as soon as you can if you are railway worker who has been injured at work. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to begin. Click here to find the DLC firm in your area.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is a federal law that permits seamen to sue their employers for work-related 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 the laws on workers' compensation similar to those that protect employees on land. It was modeled after the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which protects railroad employees. It was also tailored to satisfy the needs of maritime workers.
Contrary to the laws governing workers' compensation which limit the recovery for negligence to a maximum of the injured worker's lost wages, the Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in cases involving employer negligence. Additionally to this, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove their injury or death was directly caused by the negligence of an employer's actions. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover unspecified damages like the past and present suffering and pain, future loss of earning capacity as well as mental distress, for example.
A seaman's claim under the Jones Act may be brought in either a federal or state court. Plaintiffs in a suit brought under the Jones Act have the right to a jury trial. This is a distinct approach to the majority of workers' compensation laws, which are usually legal and do not give the injured employee the right to a 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 proof than the standard of evidence in FELA cases. The Court decided that the lower courts were correct in determining that the seaman must prove his contribution to his accident directly led to his injury.
Sorrell received US$1.5 million in compensation for his injury. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer argued that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were not correct, 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 the exact same.
Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA
Contrary to laws regarding workers' compensation in contrast, the Federal Employers' Liability Act enables railroad employees to sue their employers directly for negligence leading to injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. After an accident, they can be compensated and support their families. The FELA that was enacted in 1908 was a recognition of the inherent risks of the job. It also set up uniform liability standards.
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 cars and trains 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 failing to provide them with a reasonably safe working environment and that their injury resulted directly from the failure.
Some employees may find it difficult to meet this requirement, especially in the event that a defective piece of equipment is involved in causing an accident. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims can be a great help. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders, as well as the regulations that govern these requirements, can help strengthen the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal foundation.
Certain railroad laws that could aid the worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws, also known as "railway statues," require that rail corporations and, in some cases their agents (such as managers, supervisors, or company executives), comply with these regulations to ensure the safety of their employees. Infractions to these laws can be considered negligence per se, meaning that a violation of one of these rules is enough to support an injury claim under FELA.
When an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any another railroad device isn't installed properly or is damaged it is a typical instance of a lawful railroad violation. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured because of it they could be entitled to compensation. The law stipulates that the claims of the plaintiff can be reduced when they contributed in any way to the injury (even if it is minimal).
Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELA
FELA is a set of federal laws which allows railroad employees and their family members to claim significant damages if they get injured while working. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits like disability payments, medical expenses and funeral costs. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages may also be claimed. This is a way to penalize the railroad for negligent acts and deter other railroads from engaging in similar actions.
Congress adopted FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage at the alarming rate of accidents and fatalities on the railroads. Before FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue their employers when they were injured while on the job. Injured railroad workers and their families were frequently left without adequate financial assistance during the time that they were unable to work because of their injuries or the negligence of the railroad.
Railroad workers injured in an accident can file claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The law replaced defenses such as the Fellow Servant Doctrine or the assumption of risk by establishing the concept of comparative fault. The act determines a railroad worker’s share of responsibility for an accident by comparing their actions with the actions of their coworkers. The law also permits a jury trial.
If a railroad operator is found to be in violation of federal railroad safety statutes like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. This does not mean that the railroad to prove that it was negligent, or even that it was a to the cause of an accident. You may also file an action to recover injuries caused by exhaust fumes from diesel engines under the Boiler Inspection Act.
If you have been injured on the job as a railroad employee, you should contact an experienced railroad injury attorney immediately. A qualified lawyer can assist you file your claim and get the most benefits in the event that you are in a position of no work because of the injury.