[email protected] – https://vimeo.com/708912891

Workers Compensation Vs Federal Employers Liability ActWhen workers in high-risk sectors are injured, they are generally protected by laws that require employers to higher standards of safety. Railroad workers, for instance are covered under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).To be able to claim damages under FELA workers must prove that their injury was caused partly due to negligence on the part of the employer.FELA Vs. Workers’ CompensationWhile both workers compensation and FELA are laws that offer protection to employees, there are a few differences between the two. These distinctions are related to the process of claiming, fault assessment and types of damages awarded in instances of death or injury. Workers’ compensation law provides rapid relief to injured workers regardless of who is at fault for the accident. FELA requires that claimants demonstrate that their railroad’s employer is at a minimum partly responsible for their injuries.FELA also allows plaintiffs to sue federal courts instead of the state workers’ compensation system, and also allows a trial with a jury. It also provides specific rules for determining damage. A worker could receive up to 80% their average weekly salary, together with medical expenses and a reasonable cost-of-living benefit. Furthermore, 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 a factor in the resulting injury or death. This is a higher level than what is required to win a workers’ compensation claim. This is a consequence of the history of FELA. In 1908, Congress passed FELA to enhance rail safety by allowing injured workers to seek damages.As a result of more than a century of FELA litigation railway companies today regularly implement safer equipment, but the railway tracks, trains, yards and machine shops are still among the most dangerous workplaces. This is what makes FELA important for ensuring the safety of all railway workers and taking action against employers’ inability to protect their employees.It is important that you seek legal advice as soon as you can when you are railway worker who has been injured while at work. Contacting a BLET designated legal counsel (DLC) firm is the best way to begin. Click here to find a DLC firm in your area.FELA vs. Jones ActThe Jones Act is a federal law that permits seamen to sue their employers in the event of injuries and deaths. The law was passed in 1920 to protect seamen who risk their lives and limbs on the high seas and other navigable waters, because they aren’t covered by the laws on workers’ compensation similar to those that protect land-based employees. It was closely modeled on the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) which protects railroad workers, and was specifically designed to meet the unique 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, the Jones Act provides unlimited liability for maritime plaintiffs in cases that involve employer negligence. The Jones Act does not require plaintiffs to prove that their employer’s negligence caused their death or injury. The Jones Act also allows injured seamen to sue their employers for damages that are not specified like future and past pain and suffering as well as future and past loss of earnings capacity, and mental distress.A suit for a seaman under the Jones Act can be brought in a state court or a federal court. In a suit under the Jones Act, plaintiffs have the right to a trial by jury. This is a completely different approach to the majority of workers’ compensation laws, which are generally statutory and do not afford the injured employee the right to a jury trial.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 her own injury was subject to a higher standard of proof than the standard of proof in FELA cases. The Court decided that the lower courts were right in their decision that a seaman’s role in his own accident must be shown to have directly caused his or her injury.Sorrell was awarded US$1.5 million for his injuries. Norfolk Southern, Sorrell’s employer claimed that the instructions given to the jury by the trial court were wrong, as they instructed the jury that Norfolk was only accountable for the negligence that directly caused his 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. FELAThe Federal Employers’ Liability Act allows railroad workers to sue directly their employers for negligence that resulted in injuries. This is a significant distinction for injured workers in high-risk industries. This enables them to receive compensation for their injuries as well as take care of their families following an accident. The FELA law, which was passed in 1908, was an acknowledgement of the inherent hazards of the work. It also set up uniform standards for liability.FELA requires railroads to provide a secure working environment for their employees, which includes the use of properly maintained and repaired equipment. This includes everything from locomotives and cars to switches, tracks, and other safety equipment. To be successful, an injured worker must show that their employer breached their obligation to them by failing to provide them with a safe working environment and that the injury resulted directly from the failure.Some workers may find it difficult to meet this requirement, particularly if a defective piece equipment can be the cause of an accident. An experienced lawyer who has experience with FELA claims can be a great help. An attorney who understands the specific safety requirements for railroaders and the regulations that govern them can improve the case of a worker, by providing a strong legal basis.The Railroad Safety Appliance Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act are two railroad laws that could strengthen workers’ FELA claim. These laws are referred to as “railway statutes” and require that railroad corporations, and in certain instances their agents (like managers, supervisors, or company executives) must follow these rules to protect their employees. Violations of these statutes may be considered negligence in and of themselves, which means that a violation is enough to support a claim of injuries under the FELA.When 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 clearly a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, and when an employee is injured as a result, they may be entitled to compensation. The law provides that the claim of the plaintiff may be reduced if they contributed in any way to the injury (even even if the injury is minor).Boiler Inspection Act vs. FELAFELA is a set of federal laws that allows railroad employees and their families to claim substantial damages if they get injured while on the job. This includes compensation for lost earnings and benefits like medical expenses, disability payments and funeral costs. Additionally, if an injury causes permanent impairment or death, a claim could be made for punitive damages. This is to penalize railroads for negligent actions and deter other railroads from engaging in similar actions.Congress adopted FELA in 1908 as a result of public outrage at the alarming rate of accidents and fatalities on the railroads. Prior to FELA there was no legal avenue for railroad workers to sue their employers when they suffered injuries on the job. Injured fela attorneys , and their families, were often denied financial assistance during the time they were unable work because of their injury or negligence by the railroad.Railroad workers who are injured can bring claims for damages under FELA in either federal or state court. The law eliminated defenses like The Fellow Servant Doctrine and assumption of risk and replaced them with a system of comparative fault. The law determines a railroader’s portion of the responsibility for an accident by comparing their actions to the actions of their coworkers. The law permits a trial by jury.If a railroad company violates a federal railroad safety statute like The Safety Appliance Act and Boiler Inspection Act it is completely liable for any injuries that result. This does not mean that the railroad to prove it was negligent or that it was a cause of an accident. It is also possible to make an action under the Boiler Inspection Act when an employee is injured by exposure to exhaust fumes from diesel engines.If you are a railroad worker who has been injured, you should immediately contact an experienced lawyer for railroad injuries. A qualified lawyer can assist you file a claim and get the most benefits for the time you are unable to work due to your injury.