The 10 Most Scariest Things About Federal Employers

Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

When workers in high-risk industries are injured, they are generally protected by laws that hold employers to higher safety standards. Railroad workers, for instance are covered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).

In order to be entitled to damages under FELA workers must prove their injury was caused at 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 significant differences between the two. These distinctions are related to the claims process as well as fault evaluation, and the types of damages awarded for death or injury. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate relief to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants prove that their railroad employer is at least partially responsible for their injuries.

FELA also permits plaintiffs to sue federal courts on behalf of the state workers' compensation system, and allows for a trial by jury. It also establishes specific rules for determining damages. For example an employee can receive an amount of compensation that is up to 80 percent of their average weekly salary, in addition to medical expenses and an affordable cost of living allowance. A FELA lawsuit may also include compensation for pain and discomfort.

In order to win a FELA claim, a worker must demonstrate that the railroad's negligence was at least an element in the cause of injury or death. This is a higher standard than what is required for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This requirement is a result of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to claim damages.

As a result of more than a century of FELA litigation railway companies are now able to implement safer equipment, however the railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are still among the most dangerous places to work. FELA is essential to ensure the safety of railway workers and to tackle employers' negligence in protecting their employees.

If you are a railway employee who was injured in the course of work it is essential to seek legal advice as soon as you can. Contacting a BLET-approved legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to get started. Click on this link to find a DLC firm in your area.

FELA vs. Jones Act

The Jones Act is federal law that permits seafarers to sue their employers for any injuries or deaths they suffer while on the job. It was enacted in 1920 to protect seamen who risk their lives and limb on the high seas and other navigable waters because they aren't covered by the laws on workers' compensation like those that cover employees on land. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which protects railroad workers, and was designed to meet the unique requirements of maritime workers.

Unlike workers' compensation laws, which limit recovery for negligence to a maximum of an injured worker's lost wages, the Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in the event of employer negligence. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that their employer's negligence led to their death or injury. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers to recover damages that are not specified including the pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity, mental distress, etc.

A suit for a seaman under the Jones Act can be brought in an state court or a federal court. The plaintiffs in a suit filed under the Jones Act have the right to a jury trial. This is a fundamentally new approach to workers' compensation laws. Most of these laws are statutes 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 requested to clarify if a seaman’s contribution to their own injury was subject to a stricter proof standard than in FELA claims. The Court held that lower courts were correct in determining that the seaman must prove his role in the accident directly caused his injury.

Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million 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 only responsible for the negligence that caused his injury. Norfolk argued the standard of causation in FELA cases and Jones Act cases should be the exact same.

Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA

Unlike workers' compensation laws, the Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad employees to sue their employers directly for negligence that leads to injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. After an accident, they can be compensated and support their families. The FELA was enacted in 1908 to acknowledge the inherent dangers of the work and to establish uniform liability standards for companies who operate railroads.

FELA requires railroads to provide a safe work environment for their employees, including the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and locomotives to tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. In order for an injured worker to succeed in a lawsuit they must prove that their employer breached their duty of care by failing to provide a reasonably safe 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 malfunctioning piece of equipment is involved in an accident. This is why an attorney who has experience in FELA cases can be helpful. A lawyer who is familiar with the safety requirements for railroaders, and the regulations that regulate these requirements, can help strengthen the legal case of a worker by providing a solid legal foundation.

The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that could strengthen the worker's FELA claim. These laws, referred to as "railway statues," require that rail corporations, and in some cases their agents (such as managers, supervisors, or company executives) must adhere to these rules to ensure the safety their employees. Infractions to these laws could be considered negligence in and of themselves, meaning that a violation is sufficient to justify a claim for injuries under the fela lawsuit settlements.

An instance of a railroad statute violation is the case where an automatic coupler or grab iron is not properly installed or is defective. This is clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and if an employee is hurt because of it, they may be entitled to compensation. However, the law also stipulates that if a plaintiff contributed to the injury in any way (even if minimal) the amount they claim will be reduced.

FELA Vs. Boiler Inspection Act

FELA is a series of federal laws that allow railroad workers and their families to recover substantial damages for injuries that they sustain during work. This includes compensation for the loss of earnings and benefits, including medical expenses or disability payments, as well as funeral expenses. If an injury results in permanent impairment or death, punitive damages may also be claimed. This is in order to punish the railroad and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.

Congress adopted FELA in response to public outrage in 1908 over the shocking rate of fatalities and accidents on railroads. Before FELA there was no legal avenue for railroad workers to sue their employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Railroad workers injured and their families were frequently left without financial support during the time they were unable to work because of their injuries 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 law replaced defenses such as the Fellow Servant Doctrine, or the assumption of risk with the concept of comparative fault. This means that a railroad worker's portion of the responsibility for an accident is determined by comparing his or her actions with those of his coworkers. The law allows for an investigation by jury.

If a railroad company violates the federal railroad safety law, such as The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is strictly liable for any injuries that result. The railroad does not have to prove that it was negligent or that it contributed to an accident. You can also bring an action to recover injuries caused by exhaust fumes from diesel engines under the Boiler Inspection Act.

If you've been injured on the job as a railroad employee, you should contact an experienced railroad injury attorney immediately. A good lawyer can assist you in filing your claim and getting the most benefits possible for the time you are not working because of the injury.