U.S. Code » Title 45 » Chapter CHAPTER 2— LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES

45 U.S.C. § 55

Contract, rule, regulation, or device exempting from liability; set-off

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 45 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter, shall to that extent be void: Provided, That in any action brought against any such common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this chapter, such common carrier may set off therein any sum it has contributed or paid to any insurance, relief benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employee or the person entitled thereto on account of the injury or death for which said action was brought.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 283 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: Ratliff v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 680 S.E.2d 28 (W. Va. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ratliff v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 680 S.E.2d 28 (W. Va. 2009). · cites it 35× “, in connection with a voluntary separation program offered by his employer, Norfolk Southern, violates 45 U.S.C. § 55 (1908) (2000 ed.), [2] which prohibits employers from exempting themselves from FELA liability.”
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “Lindo next argues that if FELA's venue provision governs Jones Act cases, then so must FELA case law interpreting this provision and so too must 45 U.S.C. § 55 , a FELA section that prohibits attempts to contractually limit liability under FELA: "Any contract, rule, regulation,…”
Robert M. Nordgren v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., a Delaware Corp., 101 F.3d 1246 (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 8× “A United States magistrate judge denied BN’s motion on the basis that 45 U.S.C. § 55 of FELA prohibits BN’s proposed counterclaim, therefore rendering it “futile and subject to dismissal or defeat by summary judgment.”
Handy v. City of Lawton, 835 P.2d 870 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 6× “He concluded that the provisions of 45 U.S.C. § 55 , not the common law, required this result.”
the Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Ronald K. Oney, Individually & as Rep. of the Est. of Daniel D. Oney, 380 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “” 45 U.S.C.A. § 55 . Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction under FELA.”
Anglim v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 832 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. 1992). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff argues that defendant Missouri Pacific Railroad (MPR) is not entitled to a set-off under the provisions of 45 U.S.C. § 55 (1988) because it did not make the payments, because the payments were not made in order to reduce its liability under the FELA, and because the…”
Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. John T. Strong, 907 F.2d 707 (7th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “Strong argued that the express language of 45 U.S.C. § 55 required that only the premium payments made by the railroad to the insurance program, and not the actual amount received by Mr.”
Robert M. Cavanaugh, & Martha E. Cavanaugh v. W. Maryland Ry. Co. & Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 729 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1984). · cites it 5× “The district court held that the maintenance of the railroads’ counterclaim would violate §§ 5 and 10 of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 and 60, and thus would be contrary to the public policy reflected in such Act.”
James Lewis v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 758 F.2d 219 (7th Cir. 1985). · cites it 5× “We need not weigh the merits of this argument, however, because a claim based on 45 U.”
Dextel Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transp. Corp., K-Sea Operating P'ship Lp, as Successor in Interest to K-Sea Transp. Corp., 477 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 688, by virtue of its incorporation of section five of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 55 , voided the agreement; and that the agreement is also void under 46 U.”
Withhart v. Otto Candies, L.L.C, 431 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Contrary to Cavanaugh, Sprague, and Nordgren , both of these cases held that the FELA’s prohibition of “any device whatsoever” in Sections 5 and 10 of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 & 60, bars a railroad’s counterclaim for property damage against a railroad employee.”
Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R., 904 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “45 U.S.C. §55 is not limitless, however. The United States Supreme Court has held that a release of FELA claims can have the same effect as any other release, in that it may constitute a settlement or compromise, rather than an attempt to escape liability.”
Show all 283 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.