Understanding FELA and the Jones Act: Unique Protections for Railroad and Maritime Workers

Fri, Jan 2nd, 2026 | by Miles Mediation and Arbitration | Article | Social Share

By Ted Williams

Over many years, laws have developed to provide a cause of action for employees due to injuries that have occurred from operations of many industries that have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to the economy of our nation. These industries include those providing transportation services such as railroads and the marine industry.

Two federal laws — the Federal Employers Liability Act (45 U.S.C. §51, et seq.) and the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688 and 46 U.S.C. § 30104) — provide the basic foundation for personal injury (PI) cases for railroad and marine workers, respectively. These individuals are not entitled to worker’s compensation in different states because they work for companies that operate in interstate commerce.

As an attorney and mediator who has handled many of these cases, I will provide a general, introductory summary of these causes of action for employees of the railroad and maritime industries, respectively, for on-duty injuries. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants are encouraged to take the facts of your particular case and the applicable law when determining your cause of action and the appropriate handling of same.

Federal Employers Liability Act

The Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) was passed in 1908 and designed to provide a source of assistance to individuals who work on the railroad and are injured. Under FELA, every common carrier by railroad is liable to its employees who are injured by the negligence of officers, agents, or employees of the carrier. It is the exclusive remedy for railroad employees as they are not entitled to worker’s compensation.

FELA has a three-year statute of limitations; a FELA action can be brought in either state or federal court in the county or district where the railroad operates or has its main office or in the jurisdiction where the accident or injury occurred.

Under FELA, a railroad employee who is injured can file different causes of action, including:

• Negligence: The railroad has a nondelegable duty to provide a safe place to work for its employees. The plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition before it can be found liable.
• Violations of the Safety Appliance Act: Every railcar must be properly equipped with couplers, ladders, walkways, and steps that must be in good working order. If the railcar is not in compliance with the act, is in service, and the plaintiff is injured as a result, the defendant has absolute liability.
• A violation of the Locomotive Inspection Act. This law, formerly the Boiler Inspection Act, also results in absolute liability to the railroad if a locomotive that is in service fails to pass required inspections by the government and an employee is injured as a result.
• A violation of the Hours of Service Act, which mandates specific off-duty hours for railroad employees to ensure adequate rest. A violation that results in an injury results in absolute liability for the railroad.
• A violation of applicable OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations. A violation that results in an injury also results in absolute liability for the railroad.

To sustain a FELA claim, the plaintiff must exercise ordinary care; otherwise, contributory fault will apply, except if the injury was caused by violation of Safety Appliance Act, Locomotive Inspection Act, Hours of Service Act, or applicable OSHA Regulations. Damages must be reasonable and are reduced to present value if a damage award is made at trial. Under FELA, a plaintiff can recover no punitive damages, and the plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages.

Potential Defenses

The following are common defenses, depending on the evidence, typically raised by the railroad:

• The plaintiff didn’t qualify for coverage. The plaintiff must be an employee of a common carrier working in interstate commerce, and the railroad must have the right to control or have control over the employee at the time of the injury. For example, furloughed employees are not covered by the act.
• The plaintiff’s conduct violated a safety rule or operating rule and that is the sole cause of the injury.
• The plaintiff didn’t follow a supervisor’s orders and is at contributory fault as a result.
• The locomotive or railcar was not in service at time of injury. For example, neither the Locomotive Inspection Act or the Safety Appliance Act applies if the locomotive or railcar, respectively, is in the shop being repaired and is not in service.
• The cause of the injury was totally outside the railroad’s control.
• The plaintiff used equipment he or she wasn’t authorized to use.
• The plaintiff didn’t show notice or knowledge of the allegedly unsafe conditions on the part of the defendant at the time of the accident.

Remember, there may be other defenses depending on the evidence, so keep an open mind as you review the case.

The Jones Act

The Jones Act, passed as the Merchant Marine Act in 1920, applies FELA to the maritime industry (46 U.S.C. § 30104). It applies to any seaman assigned to, and serving on, a vessel that is in navigation or on navigable waterways at the time the injury occurred. The navigable waters may include “blue water”, typically meaning oceans, or “brown water”, typically meaning navigable rivers. The employee can bring an action in state or federal court where the employer resides, or where its principal office is located, or in the jurisdiction where the accident or injury occurred.

The causes of action for an injured employee includes:

• Negligence under the Jones Act: The negligence of the employer must be at least the partial cause of the injury.
• Violation of the Warranty of Seaworthiness: Under maritime law, a vessel must be in good enough condition to perform its functions safely; otherwise, if the vessel is deemed unseaworthy, there is absolute liability on the part of the defendant, if the employee is injured due to the unseaworthy condition.

As with FELA, the plaintiff’s contributory fault may reduce damages, except for a claim alleging an unseaworthy vessel, which makes for absolute liability on the part of the defendant.

Similarly, if the employer violated statutory or U.S. Coast Guard regulations, and said violations caused the injury, the plaintiff may be able to argue that the employer should be held to absolute liability.

Regardless, the plaintiff’s damages must be reasonable and are reduced to present value; there are no punitive damages; and the plaintiff has a duty to mitigate.

If the plaintiff is an injured seaman, he is also entitled to maintenance and cure, regardless of how the accident happened. “Maintenance” includes unpaid wages and living expenses, and “cure” is the medical treatment required to return the seaman to health. The remedies of maintenance and cure are separate from the Jones Act.

Potential Defenses

The following are common defenses, depending on the evidence, typically raised by the maritime employer:

• There was no employer/employee relationship between the plaintiff and defendant; the plaintiff doesn’t meet the definition of a “seaman.”
• The injury didn’t occur in the course of employment as a seaman.
• The employer’s conduct or lack of conduct was not the cause, or the partial cause, of the injury.
• The plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident.

Remember, there may be other defenses depending on the evidence, so keep an open mind as you review the case.

The FELA and Jones Acts help protect the rights of employees who work for railroads and maritime companies. Understanding the unique provisions and requirements of each law is essential for attorneys representing both employees and employers in these types of cases.

*Originally published in the Missouri In-House Council and reprinted with permission.

About Ted Williams

Ted Williams is a mediator, arbitrator, and trial attorney who mediates complex civil litigation cases. His trial experience includes the defense of railroad, aviation, medical malpractice, product liability, personal injury, toxic tort, and admiralty cases. Ted began practicing law in 1974 as a prosecutor in Tulsa, Oklahoma; since then, he has tried more than 200 jury trials to conclusion and served as lead trial counsel in all those cases.