- FELA and the Jones Act reject the common-law doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of the more employee-friendly system of comparative negligence. Contributory negligence holds that if an injured party helped to create the conditions of injury, that person gives up any right to damages.FELA ushered in the notion of comparative negligence, which has led to a system of percentages of fault that can reduce injury awards but do not remove them entirely.
- No amount of employer negligence is too small to pursue a claim under the Jones Act and FELA. This is one of the most beneficial innovations FELA introduced to workers in the U.S. The language of the law states that an injury “resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees” of a railroad company is eligible for the payment of damages.
UNDERSTANDING NEGLIGENCE STANDARDS IN FELA AND THE JONES ACT
Most injured workers are protected by state workers’ compensation systems. Under these programs, employees make a trade-off. They don’t have to prove their employer’s action or inaction led to the injury, but in exchange, they sacrifice the right to sue for damages. That is, the injured party does not have to show employer negligence to receive benefits.
Things are a little different for those who work on the nation’s waterways or railroad lines. Unlike workers’ compensation, the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which covers railroad worker injuries, is not a no-fault system. Neither is the Jones Act, which protects workers who serve aboard water-going vessels, and was modeled on FELA.
Call us at (314)588-8000 for a free consultation
Get a Free Quote!
Under FELA and the Jones Act, negligence matters. So how exactly do courts handle employer negligence in these cases? Here are a few things everyone who works on a railroad or a waterway should know about the concept of negligence in FELA law and within the Jones Act: