Federal Employers: It's Not As Difficult As You Think Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability Act

Workers in high-risk industries who are injured are typically protected by laws that hold employers to higher standards of safety. Federal Employers' Liability Act is one example. It protects railroad employees.

In order to recover damages under FELA workers must prove that their injury was caused at the very 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 protections to employees, there are some significant differences between them. These distinctions are related to the claims process, fault evaluation and the types of damages that are awarded for injury or death. Workers' compensation laws provide immediate relief to injured workers, regardless of who was responsible for the accident. FELA, in contrast requires claimants to prove that their railroad company was at least partly responsible for their injuries.

In addition, FELA allows workers to sue federal courts, rather than the state's workers' compensation system and provides a jury trial. It also establishes specific guidelines for the determination of damages. A worker can receive up to 80% their average weekly wage as well as medical expenses, and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. A FELA lawsuit could also include compensation for discomfort and pain.

In order for a worker to be successful in a FELA case they must prove that the railroad's negligence was at least a small part in the injury or death. This is a higher requirement than what is required to win a workers' compensation claim. This is a result of the FELA's history. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to improve rail safety by permitting injured workers to sue for damages.


As a result of more than a century of FELA litigation, railway companies now regularly adopt and use safer equipment, however the trains, tracks, railroad yards and machine shops are still some of the most dangerous work environments. This is what makes FELA essential for ensuring the safety of all railway workers as well as addressing the failures of employers to safeguard 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 by contacting an approved BLET-approved Legal Counsel (DLC). Click here to locate the DLC firm in your region.

FELA vs. fela law firm is federal law which allows seafarers to sue their employer for injuries or fatalities 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, since they are not covered by the laws on workers' compensation like those that cover land-based employees. It was modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which is a law that covers railroad workers. It was also designed to accommodate the needs of maritime employees.

The Jones Act, unlike workers' compensation laws that limit the amount of negligence recovery to the amount of lost wages for an injured worker, 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 led to their death or injury. The Jones Act allows injured seamen to sue their employers to recover unspecified damages like past and present pain and suffering, future loss of earning capacity and mental distress, among others.

A claim against seamanship under the Jones Act can be brought in either a state court or a federal court. In a lawsuit brought under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a jury trial. This is a completely new approach to workers' compensation laws. The majority of these laws are statutory in nature and do not grant injured workers the right to trial before a jury.

In the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell the US Supreme Court was requested to clarify whether a seaman's contribution to their own injuries was subject to a more strict evidence standard than FELA claims. The Court held that lower courts were right when they determined the seaman must prove his contribution to his accident directly led to his injury.

Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million in compensation for his injury. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell's employer asserted that the guidelines given to the jury by the trial court were wrong, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was solely accountable for the negligence that directly caused the injury. Norfolk asserted that the causation standard should be the same in FELA and Jones Act cases.

Safety Appliance Act vs. FELA

The Federal Employers' Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that caused injuries. This is a major distinction for injured workers in high-risk sectors. After an accident, they are able to be compensated and provide for their families. The FELA that was enacted in 1908, was a recognition of the inherent hazards of the work. It also established uniform standards for liability.

FELA requires railroads to provide a safe working environment for their employees, which includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from cars and trains to tracks, switches and other safety gear. To be successful, an injured worker must demonstrate that their employer has violated their duty of responsibility by not providing them with a reasonably safe working environment and that the injury resulted directly from this 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. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims is a great resource. A lawyer who understands the safety requirements for railroaders, as well as the regulations that govern these requirements can help bolster a worker's legal case by providing a solid legal base.

Certain railroad laws that could aid a 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 companies and, in certain instances, their agents (such as managers, supervisors, or company executives) must adhere to these rules to ensure the safety their employees. Violating these statutes can constitute negligence in and of itself, meaning that a violation of any one of these rules is sufficient to justify an injury claim under FELA.

If an automatic coupler, grab iron, or any other railroad device is not installed correctly or is defective This is a common instance of a railroad law violation. This is an obvious violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and should an employee be injured because of it the employee may be entitled to compensation. However, the law stipulates that if the plaintiff was a contributor to the injury in any way (even if minimal), their claim may be reduced.

FELA vs. Boiler Inspection Act

FELA is a set of federal laws which allows railroad employees and their families to recover substantial damages if they get injured while on the job. This includes compensation for the loss of earnings and benefits like medical expenses or disability payments, as well as funeral expenses. If an injury causes permanent impairment or death, punitive damages can also be claimed. This is intended to punish the railroad for negligent acts and deter other railroads from engaging in similar conduct.

Congress adopted FELA in 1908 due to public outrage at the alarming rate of accidents and fatalities on the railroads. Prior to FELA there was no legal way for railroad workers to sue their employers when they were hurt on the job. Railroad workers injured in the line of duty, and their families, were often denied financial aid during the time they were unable to work because of their injuries or negligence on the part of the railroad.

Under the FELA railroad workers who suffer injuries may make a claim for damages in federal or state courts. The act has replaced defenses like the Fellow Servant Doctrine or the assumption of risk with an approach based on comparative fault. This means that the railroad worker's share of the blame for an accident is determined by comparing his actions to those of coworkers. The law permits an investigation by jury.

If a railroad carrier violates one of the federal railroad safety laws like The Safety Appliance Act or Boiler Inspection Act, it is liable for all injuries that result. This does not mean that the railroad to prove that it was negligent or that it was a contributory to the cause of an accident. You may also file an action for injuries caused by diesel exhaust fumes under the Boiler Inspection Act.

If you've been injured while working as a railroad employee, you should consult a skilled railroad injury attorney immediately. The right lawyer will be able to assist you in filing your claim and obtaining the maximum benefits available during the time that you are not working because of the injury.