Federal Employers Isn't As Difficult As You Think
Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
If workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are generally protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act for instance, protects railroad workers.
To be able to claim damages under FELA, a worker must prove their injury was caused at least in part by negligence on the part of the employer.
Workers' Compensation vs. FELA
While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that provide protection to employees, there are a few differences between them. These differences are related to the process of filing claims, fault assessment and types of damages awarded in instances of death or injury. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate aid to injured workers, regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad company is at the very least partly responsible for their injuries.
Additionally, FELA allows workers to sue federal courts, rather than the state's workers' compensation system and provides the option of a jury trial. It also establishes specific rules for the determination of damages. A worker could receive up to 80% their weekly average wage, plus medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. Additionally an FELA suit could include compensation for pain and suffering.
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 to win a workers' compensation claim. This requirement is a result of FELA's history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to improve rail safety by permitting injured workers to seek damages.
As a result of more than 100 years of FELA litigation railway companies today regularly adopt and use safer equipment, but the trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops are still among the most dangerous workplaces. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to address employers' failures in protecting their employees.
It is crucial to seek legal counsel as soon as you can if are railway worker who has been injured at work. Contacting a BLET authorized legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click here to locate a 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 protect seamen who risk their lives and limbs on the high seas and other navigable waters, since they are not covered by the laws on workers' compensation similar to those that protect land-based employees. It was modeled after the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which was which covers railroad employees. It was also crafted to accommodate the needs of maritime employees.
The Jones Act, unlike workers compensation laws, which limit the amount of compensation for negligence to the maximum amount of lost wages for injured workers is a law that allows unlimited liability in maritime cases involving negligence by employers. In addition to this, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove their death or injury was directly resulted from an employer's negligent actions. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for damages that are not specified such as past and future suffering and pain in the past and future, loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.
A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought either in the state court or in a federal court. Plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act have the right to jury trial. Accident Injury Lawyers is a completely new approach to the laws governing workers' compensation. The majority of these laws are statutes 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 subject to a more strict proof standard than in FELA claims. The Court decided that the lower courts were right when they ruled that the seaman must prove his role in the accident directly caused his injury.
Sorrell received US$1.5 million as compensation for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect in that they instructed the jury to decide to hold Norfolk responsible only for any negligence that directly contributed to the injury. Norfolk claimed that the standard of causation should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.
FELA vs. Safety Appliance Act
The Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that caused injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. After an accident, they can be compensated and maintain their families. The FELA was passed in 1908 to recognize the inherent dangers associated with the job and to establish uniform liability standards for companies who operate railroads.
FELA requires railroads to provide a safe workplace for their employees. This includes the use of maintained and repaired 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 did not fulfill their obligation of care by failing to provide them with a reasonably secure working environment and that the injury was the direct result of the failure.
This requirement can be difficult to meet for some workers, especially when a piece of equipment is involved in an accident. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims is a great resource. An attorney who understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can improve a worker's case by providing a strong legal foundation.
Some railroad laws that can strengthen workers' 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) adhere to these regulations to ensure the safety of their employees. Infractions to these laws can be considered negligence by itself, which means that a violation of any 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 properly 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 due to the incident, they may be entitled to compensation. The law provides that the claims of the plaintiff can be reduced if they contributed in any way to the injury (even when the injury is not severe).
FELA vs. Boiler Inspection Act
FELA is a set of federal laws which allow railroad employees and their families to collect substantial damages for injuries sustained during work. This includes compensation for lost earnings as well as benefits such as medical expenses, disability payments and funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages could also be sought. This is to penalize the railroad and dissuade other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.
Congress passed FELA in 1908 in response to public outrage at the alarming rate of fatalities and accidents on railroads. Before FELA there was no legal mechanism for railroad employees to sue their employers when they were injured on the job. Railroad workers injured in the line of duty and their families were often left without adequate financial assistance during the period they were unable to work due to injuries or negligence on the part of the railroad.
Under the FELA railroad workers who suffer injuries can seek damages in federal or state courts. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or the assumption of risk by establishing an approach based on comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's portion of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing their actions with those of his coworkers. The law also permits a jury trial.
If a railroad company violates any of the federal railroad safety laws like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is held liable for any injuries that result. This does not require the railroad to prove that it was negligent or that it was a to the accident. It is also possible to file a claim under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust fumes.
If you have been injured while working as a railroad worker, you must contact a seasoned railroad injury lawyer right away. The right lawyer will be able to assist you in submitting your claim and receiving the maximum benefits available during the time that you are not working because of the injury.