Comparative Fault in FELA Claims: How the Legal System Handles Shared Responsibility

---

Federal law does not automatically bar an injured railroad worker from receiving compensation, even when that worker’s own actions factor into the accident. Instead, the FELA claims process applies a comparative fault model. Comparative fault, also known as contributory negligence in some jurisdictions, is a legal principle that reduces a plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to their share of fault for causing their injury. 

If you or a loved one needs guidance on these rules, start by learning the key methods courts use to handle shared responsibility. Concerned about losing out on fair FELA case settlements because of shared responsibility? Connect with an experienced railroad injury attorney at Cahill & Perry, P.C. Attorneys at Law for timely insights. Here are four ways the legal system handles shared responsibility.

METHOD #1: Reviewing Safety Obligations

Railroads are legally required to maintain safe conditions for employees, which often involves following federal regulations, performing regular equipment checks, and training staff on proper protocols. When an injury occurs, a key question is whether the railroad complied with these obligations.

• Workplace Environment: Tracks, switches, platforms, and other areas must be kept in good repair. If a hazard was allowed to remain—such as a broken handrail or a poorly lit section of track—this can point to a violation of the railroad’s duty.
• Equipment Maintenance: Trains, tools, and machinery must meet safety standards. Worn-out parts, faulty brakes, or improperly secured cargo can all be signs that the employer did not take adequate steps to prevent injury.
• Training and Oversight: Employees should receive instruction on best practices and safe operating procedures. Insufficient or outdated training often contributes to accidents because workers are forced to make decisions without the right information.

Any shortfall in these areas may lessen the worker’s share of responsibility. By highlighting the gaps in the railroad’s safety measures, an injured employee can show that employer negligence outweighed their own actions.

METHOD #2: Evaluating Employee Actions

A worker’s behavior is also scrutinized when establishing comparative fault. This is because FELA allows for a reduction in damages proportionate to a worker’s degree of negligence—but it does not bar them from recovery.

• Failure to Follow Procedure: If evidence shows that the employee did not adhere to established safety rules or deliberately ignored warnings, a court might assign a portion of the fault to that worker. However, the injury claim can remain valid if the railroad’s negligence also played a role.
• Knowledge of Potential Dangers: Workers who are aware of a hazard but choose to proceed without caution may see an impact on their compensation. Still, any fault apportioned to them must be balanced against the railroad’s obligations—such as marking hazards clearly or removing them altogether.
• Impact on Compensation: Because FELA is structured to hold railroads accountable for unsafe conditions, an employee’s partial fault typically only reduces, rather than eliminates, potential recovery.

METHOD #3: Allocating Percentages of Fault

After both sides present evidence, the court (or a jury) assigns a percentage of fault to the railroad and to the worker. This step directly determines the final compensation amount.

• Proportionate Reductions: If a settlement or court award is set at $100,000, and the worker is found 10% at fault, then they would receive $90,000.
• Balancing Evidence: In many cases, skilled FELA attorneys will introduce documentation such as workplace inspection records, accident reports, and witness testimony to demonstrate where the bulk of fault lies.
• Strategic Considerations: Workers and their counsel often aim to minimize the percentage attributed to employee error by showing that the employer’s oversight was more substantial, thereby preserving a larger award.

METHOD #4: Applying FELA-Specific Case Law

A noteworthy illustration is Diane Ard, Executrix for Estate of Robert J. Ard Jr. v. Metro-North Railroad, where a jury initially awarded $4.3 million in a FELA wrongful death suit. However, the court reduced that amount to $3.2 million based on contributory negligence. This outcome highlights a core principle of FELA liability: even if a worker (or the worker’s estate) shares in the fault, the railroad may still be required to pay significant damages if its own negligence contributed to the harm. 

Instead of completely barring recovery, the final compensation simply reflects the respective degrees of responsibility assigned to each party. Understanding real-world cases like this is essential for grasping how fault percentages come into play under FELA and underscores the importance of thorough evidence gathering to illustrate the employer’s role in an injury or death.

Shared Responsibility Without Losing Your Right to Recovery

Comparative fault acknowledges that both parties can play a role in an accident, but it does not shut the door on significant recovery under FELA. Cahill & Perry, P.C. Attorneys at Law helps clients defend their rights and pursue case settlements that reflect each party’s true level of fault. Reach out today to safeguard your future and seek an outcome that justly accounts for all contributing factors.