Responsive Menu
Add more content here...

FELA vs. Workers’ Compensation

Railroad workers are generally covered by FELA rather than traditional state workers’ compensation systems. Both can provide financial recovery after a work injury, but they operate very differently. The biggest differences involve fault, available damages, how claims are resolved, and what happens when the worker is partly responsible.

Why Railroad Workers Usually Do Not Use Traditional Workers’ Compensation

Most private-sector employees injured at work are covered by state workers’ compensation laws. Those systems generally provide benefits such as medical treatment and wage replacement without requiring the worker to prove that the employer caused the injury through negligence.

Railroad employees covered by FELA operate under a different federal system.

FELA makes a railroad liable when an employee is injured and negligence by the railroad, its officers, agents, or employees, or a defect or insufficiency caused by railroad negligence, contributes in whole or in part to the injury.

That difference changes how a serious railroad injury should be investigated from the beginning.


FELA vs Workers’ Compensation at a Glance

FELAWorkers’ Compensation
Who it generally coversQualifying railroad employeesMost other employees under applicable state systems
Must Employer negligence be proven?Yes. Railroad negligence must contribute to the injuryGenerally no
Fault mattersYesUsually not in the same way
Pain and sufferingMay be recoverableTypically not part of standard workers’ comp benefits
Lost incomeMay include past and future wage-related lossesUsually based on statutory limits
Future earning capacityMay be recoverableOften subject to statutory limits
Can damages be reduced for worker fault?Yes, in many casesFault generally does not determine eligibility in the same way
Civil lawsuit possible?YesWorkers’ compensation typically operates through an administrative benefit system
General filing periodThree years from accrualVaries by state

These differences can significantly affect both how a railroad injury claim is investigated and the compensation that may be available.


The Biggest Difference: FELA Requires Proof of Railroad Negligence

Workers’ compensation is generally described as a no-fault system. A worker usually does not need to establish that the employer acted negligently before receiving covered benefits.

FELA is different. An injured railroad worker must establish that railroad negligence contributed to the injury. The statute imposes liability when railroad negligence contributes in whole or in part to the worker’s injury or death.

That means a FELA case often turns on questions such as:

  • What caused the injury?
  • Was the work being performed safely?
  • Was the proper equipment available?
  • Was the equipment properly maintained?
  • Did the railroad know about a dangerous condition?
  • Were enough employees assigned to the job?
  • Was the worker properly trained?
  • Were safety rules followed?
  • Did management require or permit an unsafe work practice?
  • Did another railroad employee contribute to what happened?

This is why a railroad injury investigation is about more than documenting the medical diagnosis. It must also establish why the injury happened.


FELA May Allow Broader Damages

Workers’ compensation benefits are generally defined by statute and may include medical treatment and partial wage replacement.

FELA allows an injured railroad worker to pursue damages based on the actual impact of the injury.

Depending on the case, those damages may include:

  • Medical expenses
  • Lost wages
  • Loss of future earning capacity
  • Pain and suffering
  • Permanent disability
  • Disfigurement
  • Loss of normal activities

For a worker who cannot return to railroad work, the difference can be significant.


Being Partly at Fault Does Not Automatically End a FELA Claim

This is another meaningful distinction.

A railroad may argue that the worker contributed to the injury. Under FELA, that does not necessarily prevent recovery.

Instead, damages may be reduced based on the worker’s percentage of fault.

Example:
If total damages were $500,000 and the worker was found 20% responsible, the award could be reduced by 20%.


A FELA Claim Can Be Litigated in Court

Traditional workers’ compensation claims generally move through a state administrative system. FELA claims are civil cases.

That means a serious FELA claim may involve:

  • Evidence collection
  • Depositions
  • Medical testimony
  • Railroad records
  • Expert witnesses
  • Settlement negotiations
  • Trial

This distinction matters because the claim must be developed as a matter of litigation, not simply processed as a workplace benefit request.


Why the Difference Matters After a Railroad Injury

Because FELA is fault-based, an injured railroad worker should not approach the situation as though the only issue is reporting an injury and receiving benefits. The circumstances surrounding the injury may become evidence in a legal claim. That makes it important to preserve information about:

  • Whether the hazard had been reported before
  • What happened
  • Where it happened
  • Who witnessed it
  • What equipment was involved
  • What working conditions existed

Railroad Injuries Are Handled Differently

FELA grants railroad workers rights that differ from traditional workers’ compensation. Understanding those differences can matter after a serious injury.

McEldrew Purtell has successfully litigated FELA claims involving seriously injured railroad workers. If you or a family member has suffered a serious railroad injury, contact our railroad team to discuss your case.