RCED-96-199 Federal Employers' Liability Act: Issues Associated With Changing How Railroad Work-Related Injuries Are Compensated

Excerpt from Federal Employers' Liability Act: Practitioner's Manual; Digest of Decisions Under Act; Judicial Law in Language of Court Interpretations; Forms of Pleading Under Requirements of Act; Safety Appliance and Hours of Service Acts Nor is it a valid objection that the act embraces instances when the causal negligence is that of an employe engaged in intra-state commerce; for such negligence, when operating injuriously upon an employe engaged in interstate commerce, has the same effect upon that commerce as if the negligent employe was also engaged therein. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Examines the issues associated with changing how railroad workers are compensated for their work-related injuries. In particular, it identifies the potential implications for railroad costs & railroad workers of: (1) replacing the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) with a no-fault compensation system, or (2) modifying FELA. Also discusses FELA's effects on small railroads & the availability & affordability of insurance to protect small railroads against large FELA payouts. Charts, tables & graphs.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined how replacing the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) with a no-fault compensation system would affect the railroad industry. GAO found that: (1) the cost of replacing FELA with a nationwide no-fault compensation system depends on the number of injured railroad workers permanently disabled and the number of workers unable to return to work at preinjury wages; (2) the costs under a no-fault compensation system would be the same as or lower than FELA costs; (3) overall injury compensation costs would be lower under a no-fault system if fewer than 70 percent of injured rail workers are able to return to work; (4) railroads would save an average of $100 per employee if injured workers continue to work after receiving settlement; (5) a no-fault compensation system would reduce railroads' administrative costs, but limit the amount of compensation and legal counsel that injured workers receive; (6) small railroads have fewer lost workdays and lower injury rates than large railroads; (7) small railroads have lower FELA costs than large railroads and rely on insurance payments to avoid high FELA payouts; (8) railroads could reduce their administrative costs by placing a cap on compensation for noneconomic losses and limiting plaintiff's legal fees; (9) railroad management and labor disagree over how well FELA is working and whether it should be replaced or changed; and (10) FELA is no more burdensome for passenger and small freight railroads than it is for large freight railroads.