If you’re a railroad worker injured on the job, you’ve likely heard of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)—a federal law designed to protect and compensate railroad employees who are hurt due to unsafe working conditions. Unlike traditional workers’ compensation systems, FELA is a fault-based system. This means proving that your employer was negligent is essential to recovering damages. But what happens if you were partially at fault for your injury? That’s where the concept of comparative fault comes into play. Here’s what it means, and how it might affect your FELA case.
What Is Comparative Fault?
Comparative fault (also called comparative negligence) is a legal doctrine that reduces the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover based on their own percentage of fault for the accident. It acknowledges that multiple parties can share responsibility for an injury.
Under FELA, comparative fault doesn’t bar recovery. Even if you’re partially responsible for your injury, you can still receive compensation—the total award is just reduced in proportion to your level of fault.
How Comparative Fault Works in a FELA Case
Let’s say you’re a railroad conductor and you suffer a back injury after lifting a heavy load. An investigation shows:
- The railroad failed to provide proper lifting equipment or training (employer negligence)
- You ignored a safety protocol that might have reduced the risk of injury (your negligence)
A jury might determine that:
- The railroad was 70% at fault
- You were 30% at fault
If your total damages are $100,000, the court would reduce that by your share of fault (30%), and you would receive $70,000.
Why Comparative Fault Is Important in FELA
FELA’s use of comparative fault is more favorable to workers than some state laws. In many personal injury cases outside the FELA framework, if a plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they might be barred from recovery altogether. Not so under FELA. Even if you are 49%, 50%, or even 99% at fault, you can still recover damages—just reduced accordingly.
This reflects FELA’s worker-friendly intent, rooted in the dangerous nature of railroad work and the need to hold employers accountable for unsafe practices. In addition, if you are injured as the result of certain safety regulations, the railroad will be prevented from arguing comparative fault, even if you a mostly to blame.
How Employers Use Comparative Fault Against You
Railroad companies and their insurers routinely raise comparative fault as a defense to limit how much they have to pay. They may argue that:
- You were improperly trained but should have known better
- You failed to follow a safety protocol
- You were using equipment improperly
That’s why it’s critical to have experienced legal representation in a FELA case. A knowledgeable FELA attorney can identify theories of employer negligence that may not be readily apparent by:
- Investigating the accident thoroughly;
- Collecting evidence of the employer’s negligence; and
- Challenging unfair fault-shifting tactics
If you’ve been injured working for a railroad, don’t let your employers’ blame-shifting tactics stop you from pursuing a claim. You may still be entitled to substantial compensation under FELA—even if you made a mistake on the job.
