How Does Comparative Negligence Work in Alabama FELA Cases?

The environment of a rail yard is inherently unforgiving. Whether you are working a switching operation at Norris Yard in Birmingham or handling logistics at the Terminal Railway in Mobile, the heavy machinery and constant movement create risks that can change a life in seconds. When an injury occurs, the immediate physical pain is often followed closely by a specific type of anxiety. You might replay the incident in your mind, wondering if a momentary lapse in judgment or a split-second decision contributed to the accident.

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act Versus Alabama State Law

To grasp how fault is handled in your case, we must first distinguish the legal framework that protects you. Most workers in Alabama who are hurt on the job file for state workers’ compensation. That is a no-fault system, meaning they get paid regardless of who caused the accident, but the benefits are capped and quite limited.

Railroad workers are different. Since 1908, the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, or FELA, has governed injuries in the railroad industry. This federal statute requires you to prove that the railroad was negligent to recover damages. While this requirement to prove fault might seem like a higher hurdle, FELA offers a significant advantage: it allows for full compensation. You can recover from pain and suffering, mental anguish, and full lost wages damages that are simply not available under standard workers’ compensation.

The confusion often arises when a worker knows they might have been partially at fault. In a standard Alabama personal injury lawsuit, such as a slip and fall at a grocery store in Huntsville, the state applies a rule called pure contributory negligence. Under this strict state rule, if a jury finds the injured person was even one percent responsible for the accident, they are barred from recovering any money at all. This rule is why insurance adjusters in standard car accident cases fight so hard to pin a small amount of blame on the victim.

FELA completely rejects this harsh Alabama standard. Instead, it uses a system designed to be fair to the worker, acknowledging the dangerous nature of the railroad industry.

Pure Comparative Negligence Explained

FELA operates under the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. This legal concept recognizes that accidents are rarely the result of a single cause. Often, an injury is the result of a combination of factors: a hazardous condition created by the carrier and a mistake made by the employee.

Under comparative negligence, your own fault does not erase your claim. Instead, it simply reduces the total amount of damages you can recover by the percentage of your fault. The law requires the jury to look at the total picture and assign a percentage of responsibility to the railroad and a percentage to the worker.

Here is how the calculation functions in practice:

• First, the total dollar amount of your damages is calculated. This includes your medical bills, future treatment costs, lost wages, lost earning capacity, and non-economic damages like pain and suffering.
• Second, the fact-finder assigns a percentage of fault to the railroad and a percentage to you.
• Third, your total award is reduced by your assigned percentage.

For example, if a jury determines your total damages are $500,000, but they also decide you were 20 percent at fault for the incident, you do not lose the claim. You would still recover $400,000. Even if you were found to be more at fault than the railroad for instance, 60 percent responsible you would still be entitled to recover 40 percent of your damages. As long as the railroad’s negligence played any part, no matter how small, in causing the injury, you have a valid path to compensation.

Establishing Railroad Negligence in FELA Claims

For comparative negligence to apply, we must first establish that the railroad bears some responsibility. FELA imposes a non-delegable duty on railroad companies to provide a reasonably safe place to work. This duty extends to the equipment, the track, the procedures, and the supervision provided to crews.

The burden of proof for a worker under FELA is often described as a featherweight burden. You do not need to prove the railroad was the sole cause of the injury, nor do you need to prove their negligence was significant. You only need to show that their negligence played a part—even the slightest part in the injury.

Common examples of railroad negligence that we investigate include:

• Defective Track and Ballast: Walking conditions in yards like the 27th Street Yard in Birmingham can be treacherous. Large, uneven ballast, oil spills, or debris that cause a slip, trip, or fall constitute a failure to provide a safe walkway.
• Malfunctioning Equipment: Switches that are hard to throw, handbrakes that fail to hold, or locomotive seats that are broken can all lead to serious musculoskeletal injuries.
• Inadequate Staffing: When crews are forced to work short-handed, fatigue sets in and corners are cut. If the railroad puts production over safety by understaffing a job, they are negligent.
• Failure to Train: Sending a worker to perform a task they have not been properly trained to handle is a direct violation of the railroad’s duty.
• Unsafe Work Methods: Requiring employees to lift heavy knuckles without assistance or perform movements that place excessive strain on the back or joints can be considered negligence.
• Violation of Safety Rules: If a supervisor encourages a crew to ignore a safety rule to get a train out of the yard faster, the railroad is liable for injuries that result from that culture of non-compliance.

Employee Actions That May Constitute Comparative Negligence

While the railroad will almost always try to argue you were at fault, it is helpful to know what actions typically lead to a finding of comparative negligence. Defense attorneys for the railroad will scour your accident report and medical records looking for admissions that you failed to protect yourself.

Situations where a worker might be assigned a percentage of fault include:

• Violating a Specific Safety Rule: If you knowingly violated a written safety rule, such as mounting moving equipment when prohibited, a jury may assign you some fault.
• Failure to Use PPE: Not wearing provided safety glasses, hearing protection, or high-visibility vests when required can be used to reduce your award.
• Inattention: Admitting that you were not looking where you were going or were distracted by a personal device can be damaging.
• Taking an Unsafe Shortcut: Climbing over a coupler instead of using the crossover platform or jumping off a car to save steps are common arguments used by the defense.
• Failure to Inspect: If it was your specific job duty to inspect a piece of equipment before using it, and you failed to do so, the railroad will argue you contributed to the failure.

However, it is vital to remember that even if one of these factors exists, it does not end your case. It merely becomes a factor in the final calculation of damages.

The Statutory Exception: When Your Fault Does Not Matter

There is a powerful exception within the FELA statute where comparative negligence does not apply at all. If your injury was caused by the railroad’s violation of a specific federal safety statute, the railroad is strictly liable. In these specific scenarios, your own negligence is irrelevant. You could be 100 percent careless, and you would still be entitled to 100 percent of your damages.

This strict liability applies primarily to violations of:

• The Federal Safety Appliance Act (SAA): This act covers safety devices on railcars and locomotives, such as couplers that must couple automatically, secure grab irons and ladders, and efficient handbrakes. If a grab iron breaks or a handbrake fails to hold a car, the railroad has violated the SAA.
• The Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA): This act requires the entire locomotive and its parts to be in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary peril to life or limb. This covers everything from the engine itself to slipping hazards on the floor of the cab, broken seats, or exhaust fumes entering the cabin.
• OSHA Regulations: In certain specific instances, violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards can also trigger this strict liability or bar the defense of contributory negligence.

If we can prove that a violation of the SAA or LIA contributed to your injury, the judge will instruct the jury that they cannot reduce your award based on your own conduct.

A Hypothetical Case Study in Jefferson County

To illustrate how this works in the real world, consider a hypothetical scenario involving a conductor working at a yard in Jefferson County.

The Incident: The conductor is in the process of tying down a cut of cars. The ballast in the area is old, contaminated with oil, and extremely uneven a condition the railroad has known about but failed to fix. As the conductor steps off the car, his boot slips on the oily ballast. He twists his knee severely, tearing the meniscus and ACL.

The Investigation: During the discovery process, it is revealed that the conductor did not have his lantern turned on, even though it was dusk. The railroad argues that if he had used his light, he might have seen the oil spot.

The Outcome:

• Total Damages: The jury awards $800,000 for surgery, rehabilitation, lost wages, and permanent pain in the knee.
• Fault Allocation: The jury decides the railroad was 80 percent at fault for failing to maintain a safe walkway free of hazards. They find the conductor 20 percent at fault for failing to use his lantern.
• Final Award: The conductor receives $640,000.

In a standard Alabama personal injury case, the conductor’s failure to use the lantern would likely result in a zero-dollar recovery. Under FELA, he receives substantial compensation that protects his financial future.

Why Reporting and Documentation Are Essential

Because the degree of fault directly impacts the amount of money you receive, the actions you take immediately following an accident are significant. The railroad begins building its case to shift blame to you the moment the accident is reported.

To protect your position regarding comparative negligence:

• Be Precise in the Accident Report: When filling out the personal injury report, focus on the facts. Identify exactly what the railroad provided that was unsafe. Was the ground uneven? Was the lighting poor? Was the tool defective? Do not speculate about what you might have done differently.
• Avoid Admitting Fault Statements: Avoid vague statements like “I was clumsy” or “I wasn’t paying attention.” These are often natural reactions to a traumatic event, but they will be used against you later to increase your percentage of fault.
• Photograph the Hazard: If you tripped on debris, take a picture of it immediately. Conditions in a rail yard change quickly; that debris might be cleaned up by the time a claim agent arrives.
• Witness Statements: Secure the contact information of coworkers who saw the accident or who can testify to the dangerous conditions that existed at the time.

Navigating the Claims Process with Professional Guidance

The calculation of comparative negligence is often a negotiation. The railroad’s claims department will start by asserting you were mostly or entirely at fault. They may tell you that because you violated a rule, your claim is worth very little. This is a tactic designed to suppress the value of your settlement.

Experienced counsel looks at the totality of the circumstances. We examine training logs, inspection records, and maintenance schedules to find the systemic failures on the part of the railroad that set the stage for the accident. Often, what looks like a worker error is actually the result of improper training or a failure by the railroad to enforce its own safety protocols.

It is also important to correctly identify the full scope of damages. A reduction for comparative negligence hurts less if the total valuation of the claim is accurate. If your future medical needs and lost earning capacity are properly calculated, a small percentage reduction for comparative fault still leaves room for a recovery that supports you and your family.

Securing Your Future After a Railroad Injury

If you have been injured working for a railroad in Alabama, do not let the fear of partial fault keep you from seeking the compensation you deserve. The law is written to protect you, acknowledging that even good workers make mistakes in dangerous environments. At Burge & Burge, PC, we know how to push back against the railroad’s attempts to shift the blame. We investigate the root causes of accidents and ensure that the principles of comparative negligence are applied fairly, maximizing the recovery for our clients.

Contact us today at 205-947-2962 for a free consultation. Let us review the facts of your case and help you navigate the path to recovery.

Frequently Asked Questions