What Is Negligence Under FELA? The “Featherweight” Standard
Last updated 21 June 2026
To win a FELA claim you must show the railroad was negligent and that its negligence played a part in your injury. The key is how little you have to prove: under FELA, the railroad is liable if its negligence contributed to the injury “in whole or in part” — even slightly. Lawyers call this the “featherweight” causation standard.
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.
Source: The right to sue comes from 45 U.S.C. §51. The relaxed causation rule comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957), reaffirmed in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011).
The four building blocks of a FELA negligence claim
- Duty. The railroad has a non-delegable duty to use reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe workplace, safe tools and equipment, adequate help, and reasonable safety rules.
- Breach. The railroad failed to meet that duty in some way (unsafe equipment, poor training, unsafe conditions, ignored safety rules).
- Causation. That failure played a part — even a slight one — in causing the injury.
- Damages. You suffered harm (medical bills, lost earnings, pain, disability).
The railroad’s duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace
This duty is broad and cannot be handed off to a subcontractor. It includes safe track, ballast, and walkways; properly maintained locomotives and equipment; adequate staffing so a job is not done dangerously short-handed; enforcement of the railroad’s own operating and safety rules; and warnings about known hazards.
Why FELA causation is easier than ordinary negligence
In a typical personal-injury case, a plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct was a substantial or proximate cause. FELA rejects that. In Rogers, the Court held the test is simply whether the railroad’s negligence “played any part, even the slightest,” in producing the injury. In McBride (2011), the Court confirmed there is no separate “proximate cause” requirement layered on top. This is the single most important reason well-documented FELA claims succeed.
| Ordinary negligence | FELA negligence | |
|---|---|---|
| Causation test | Substantial / proximate cause | “Any part, even the slightest” |
| Worker’s own fault | May bar or sharply reduce recovery | Only reduces it (pure comparative) |
| Assumption of risk | Can be a defense | Abolished by §54 |
Defenses FELA takes away from the railroad
- Assumption of risk is abolished under 45 U.S.C. §54 — a worker does not “accept” the danger by doing the job.
- The fellow-servant rule is gone — the railroad is responsible for a co-worker’s negligence.
- Contributory negligence no longer bars the claim; it only reduces damages (45 U.S.C. §53), and not even that where a safety statute was violated.
Proving the breach
Negligence is proven with evidence: maintenance and inspection records, the railroad’s own rule book, prior complaints or injuries, OSHA or FRA findings, photographs, and testimony. See our guide on proving railroad negligence for the documents and steps that matter most.
What is the standard of negligence under FELA?
What duty does a railroad owe its workers under FELA?
Can the railroad use 'assumption of risk' against me?
Does my own carelessness defeat a FELA claim?
Related FELA & railroad-injury guides
- Proving Railroad Negligence
- FELA Explained (45 U.S.C. §51)
- FELA Comparative Negligence
- Locomotive Inspection Act Claims
- FELA vs. Workers' Comp Explained
- FELA Damages Explained
Think the railroad was at fault?
Estimate the potential range, then talk to a licensed FELA attorney about whether the evidence supports negligence in your case.
Estimate my FELA case