FELA Comparative Negligence: How Your Own Fault Affects Recovery
Last updated 21 June 2026
FELA uses pure comparative negligence under 45 U.S.C. §53. That means your own carelessness reduces your recovery in proportion to your share of fault — but it never wipes the claim out entirely. And if the railroad violated a federal safety statute, your fault is not counted at all.
Informational only. This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. TrainAccidentLawyer.us is not a law firm and no attorney–client relationship is created by reading it. FELA cases turn on their specific facts and on current law; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before acting.
The statute: Under 45 U.S.C. §53, contributory negligence does not bar recovery but “the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee.” The same section removes that reduction when the railroad violated a safety statute enacted for employee safety.
Pure comparative negligence, in plain terms
If a jury finds you 30% at fault, your award is reduced by 30% — you still recover the other 70%. There is no cutoff. This is different from many state injury laws that use “modified” comparative negligence and bar recovery once a plaintiff is 50% or 51% at fault. FELA has no such bar.
| Your share of fault | What you recover |
|---|---|
| 0% | 100% of damages |
| 25% | 75% of damages |
| 50% | 50% of damages |
| 90% | 10% of damages |
The safety-statute exception (the big one)
Section 53 contains a powerful carve-out: if the railroad violated a federal statute enacted for the safety of employees — such as the Locomotive Inspection Act or the Safety Appliance Act — and that violation contributed to the injury, the worker’s contributory negligence is disregarded entirely. The award is not reduced at all.
How railroads use comparative fault
Because any percentage of worker fault lowers the payout, railroads often argue the worker contributed — by not following a rule, by haste, or by “assuming the risk.” Two points matter:
- Assumption of risk is abolished under 45 U.S.C. §54 — doing the job is not accepting the danger.
- Following the railroad’s direction or working short-handed is not automatically the worker’s fault; that can be the railroad’s negligence.
Why it matters in negotiation
Comparative fault is one of the main levers in a FELA negotiation. Strong evidence that the railroad’s negligence — not the worker’s — caused the injury both raises liability and shrinks the fault discount. Our calculator applies the pure comparative rule so you can see the effect of different fault percentages.
Watch the framing. A claim agent may push a high “your fault” percentage to justify a low offer. That figure is negotiable and, in a safety-statute case, may not apply at all.
What kind of comparative negligence does FELA use?
If I was partly at fault, can I still recover under FELA?
What is the safety-statute exception in FELA?
Can the railroad say I assumed the risk?
Related FELA & railroad-injury guides
- FELA Explained (45 U.S.C. §51)
- What Is Negligence Under FELA?
- Locomotive Inspection Act Claims
- FELA Damages Explained
- The FELA Settlement Process
- Proving Railroad Negligence
See how fault changes the number
Adjust the fault percentage in the calculator to watch pure comparative negligence work the way FELA §53 does.
Estimate my FELA case