Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act
When workers in high-risk sectors are injured, they are usually protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for example, have the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
To be able to claim damages under FELA workers must prove that their injury was caused at the very least partly due to negligence on the part of the employer.
FELA against. Workers' Compensation
While both workers compensation and FELA are laws that offer protection to employees, there are significant differences between them. These distinctions are related to claims processes, fault evaluation and the types of damages that are awarded in the event of death or injury. Workers' compensation law provides rapid relief to injured workers regardless of who was responsible for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad's employer is at a minimum partly responsible for their injuries.
Additionally, FELA allows workers to sue federal courts, instead of the state's workers compensation system. It also provides a jury trial. It also has specific guidelines for the determination of damages. A worker could receive up to 80% of their average weekly wage together with medical expenses, and an appropriate cost-of-living allowance. Moreover, a FELA suit could also include compensation for pain and suffering.
To win a FELA claim, a worker must prove that the railroad's negligence was at the very least a factor in the injury or death. This is a higher level than what is required to win a workers compensation claim. This is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to enhance rail safety by permitting injured workers to seek damages.
Despite the fact that railroad companies have been suing for more than 100 years, they continue to employ dangerous equipment and tracks for trains, as well as in their machines shops, yards and other work areas. FELA is important to ensure the safety of railway workers, and to tackle employers' failures in protecting their employees.
It is crucial to seek legal advice as quickly as you can when you are railway worker who has been injured at work. The best method to start is to reach out to the BLET designated Legal Counsel (DLC). Click on this link to find the DLC firm in your region.
FELA vs. Jones Act
The Jones Act is a federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers for on-the-job injuries and deaths. The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 as a means to protect sailors who put their lives at risk on the high seas or other navigable waters. They are not covered by workers' compensation laws, unlike land-based employees. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which covers railroad workers, and was specifically designed to meet the specific needs of maritime employees.
In contrast to workers' compensation laws which limit the recovery for negligence to a maximum amount of an injured worker's lost wages, Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in the event of employer negligence. In addition, under the Jones Act, plaintiffs are not required to prove that their injury or death 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 like future and past suffering and pain in the past and future, loss of earnings capacity and mental distress.
A claim against a seaman under the Jones Act can be brought in either an state court or a federal court. In a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a fundamentally new approach to the workers' compensation laws. The majority of these laws are statutory and do not grant 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 their own injury was subject to a more rigorous standard of proof than the standard for evidence in FELA cases. The Court ruled that the lower courts were right in determining that the seaman's involvement in his own accident has to be proved to have directly caused his or her injury.
Sorrell was awarded 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, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was solely responsible for negligence that directly caused the 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
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 working in high-risk fields. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and maintain their families. The FELA that was enacted in 1908, was an acknowledgment of the inherent dangers of the work. It also set up uniform liability standards.
fela claims railroad employees requires that railroads offer a safe working environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and trains to tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. In order for an injured worker to succeed in a lawsuit, they must prove that their employer violated their duty of care by not providing a safe work environment, and that the injury was a direct result of the negligence.
Some workers may have difficulty to comply with this requirement, especially when a piece of equipment that is defective can be the cause of an accident. This is why a lawyer with expertise in FELA cases can be of assistance. A lawyer who understands the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that govern these requirements, can help bolster the legal case of a worker by giving a solid legal basis.
Some railroad laws that may strengthen workers' FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws, also known as "railway statues," require that rail companies and, in certain 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 negligence in and of themselves, which means that a violation can be considered sufficient to support a claim for injuries under the FELA.
If an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any another railroad device isn't 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 should an employee be injured as a result they could be entitled to compensation. The law states that the claims of the plaintiff can be reduced if they were responsible in any way to the injury (even even if the injury is minor).
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 suffer injuries on the job. This includes compensation for lost earnings as well as benefits like medical expenses, disability payments and funeral costs. In addition in the event that an injury results in permanent impairment or death, a claim can be brought for punitive damages. This is to penalize the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.
Congress approved FELA in 1908 in response to 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 at work. Railroad workers who were injured, and their families, were often left without financial aid 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 are injured can seek damages in federal or state courts. The act eliminated defenses like The Fellow Servant Doctrine and the assumption of risk and replaced them with the concept of comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's share of the responsibility for an accident is determined by comparing their actions to those of his coworkers. The law allows for a trial by jury.
If a railroad company violates any of the federal railroad safety statutes such as The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it becomes strictly liable for all injuries that result. The railroad does not need to prove negligence or the fact that it caused an accident. It is also possible to file an action under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust fumes.
If you've been injured on the job as a railroad worker you must contact a seasoned railroad injury lawyer right away. A qualified lawyer can assist you file a claim and obtain the maximum benefits during the time you are in a position of no work because of the injury.