17 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Beware Of Federal Employers Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

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

To claim damages under the FELA the plaintiff must demonstrate that their injury was at least in part caused by the negligence of the employer.

FELA vs. Workers' Compensation

While both workers' compensation and FELA are laws that provide protection to employees, there are some significant differences between the two. These distinctions are related to the claims process, fault assessment and the kinds of damages awarded in instances of injury or death. 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 company is at the very least partially responsible for their injuries.

FELA also permits plaintiffs to sue federal courts instead of the state workers' compensation system and allows for a trial by jury. It also sets specific rules for determining damage. For instance workers can be awarded compensation up to 80 percent of their average weekly wage, plus medical expenses and a reasonable cost of living allowance. Furthermore the FELA suit could include compensation for pain and suffering.

In order for a worker to be successful in a FELA case, they must show that the railroad's negligence played at least a small part in the death or injury. This is a far more stringent requirement than that needed for a successful claim under workers' compensation. This requirement is a product of FELA’s history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to increase rail safety by permitting injured workers to seek damages.

In the wake of more than a century of FELA litigation railway companies today regularly adopt and use safer equipment, but railroad tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are still some of the most dangerous places to work. This is what makes FELA important for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing employers' failures to safeguard their employees.

If you are a railway worker who was injured while on the job, it is crucial that you seek legal advice as quickly as possible. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the most effective way to start. Click this link to find an approved DLC firm near you.

FELA vs. Jones Act

The Jones Act is a federal law that allows seamen to sue their employers in the event of 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 as they are not 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 covers railroad workers and was designed to meet the specific 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 and provides unlimited liability in maritime cases that involve negligence by employers. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that their employer's negligence caused their injury or death. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers in order to recover unspecified damages like past and present suffering and pain, future loss of earning capacity, mental distress, etc.

A claim by a seaman under the Jones Act may be brought in a federal or state court. In a case brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a fundamentally different approach than most workers' compensation laws, which are generally statute-based and do not grant injured workers 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 her own injury was subject to a more rigorous standard of evidence than the standard of proof in FELA cases. The Court decided that the lower courts were correct in determining that a seaman must prove that his involvement in the accident directly led to his injury.


Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injury. Sorrell's employer, Norfolk Southern, argued that the court's instructions to the jury were incorrect as they instructed the jury to decide to hold Norfolk responsible only for any negligence directly contributing to his or her injury. Norfolk asserted that the causation standard should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.

Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA

Unlike workers' compensation laws and the Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad employees to sue their employers directly for negligence that leads to injuries. This is a crucial distinction for injured workers who work in high-risk industries. After an accident, they can be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA, which was passed in 1908 was an acknowledgement of the inherent risks of the job. It also established uniform liability standards.

FELA requires railroads to offer a safe working environment for their employees. This includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to tracks, switches, and other safety equipment. To allow an injured worker to be successful in a claim they must prove that their employer acted in breach of their duty of care by failing to provide a reasonably safe working environment and that the injury occurred as a direct result of that inability.

Some employees may find it difficult to meet this requirement, especially if a defective piece equipment can be the cause of an accident. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims is a great resource. A lawyer who is knowledgeable of the specific safety requirements for railroaders as well as the regulations that govern them can improve a worker's case by providing a strong legal foundation.

Some railroad laws that may strengthen the worker's FELA case include the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Railroad Safety Appliance Act. These laws are known as "railway statutes" and mandate that rail corporations, and in certain instances their agents (like managers, supervisors or executives of companies) must adhere to these rules in order to protect their employees. Infractions to these laws can be considered negligence in and of itself, meaning that a violation of any one of these rules is sufficient to justify a claim for injury under FELA.

An example of an infraction to the railroad statute is when an automatic coupler or grab iron isn't correctly installed or is defective. This is clearly a 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 states that if the plaintiff contributed to their injury in some way (even even if it was a minor cause) the claim could be reduced.

FELA vs. Boiler Inspection Act

FELA is a set of federal laws that permit railroad employees and their families to collect substantial damages for injuries caused while working. This includes the compensation for lost earnings and benefits such as disability payments, medical expenses and funeral expenses. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages may also be claimed. This is a way to penalize railroads for negligent actions and discourage other railroads from engaging in similar behavior.

Congress passed FELA as a response to the public's outrage in 1908 about the alarming number of deaths and accidents on railroads. Before fela railroad settlements there was no legal basis for railroad workers to sue their employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Railroad workers injured and their families were often left without financial support during the time they were unable to work due to their injury or the negligence of the railroad.

Under the FELA, railroad workers injured are able to file a claim for damages in state or federal courts. The act replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or assumption of risk by establishing a system 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 his coworkers. The law also permits a jury trial.

If a railroad operator violates one of the federal railroad safety laws such as The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it becomes strictly liable for all injuries that result. This does not require the railroad to prove it was negligent, or even that it was a cause of an accident. It is also possible to bring 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 immediately. The right lawyer can help you file your claim and get the most benefits during the time you are not able to work because of your injury.