The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Davis case in 1928 revolved around the issue of whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee while off duty, but still on the premises of the employer. The plaintiff, Davis's administrator, argued that under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which protects and compensates railroad workers who get injured on the job, his client was entitled to damages from Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company because he was required to stay near his work site due to long hours and lack of alternative accommodations. However, The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that FELA did not apply as it only covers injuries incurred during employment or directly related to duties performed within one's scope of employment. Therefore, since Davis was off-duty at time of injury despite being on company property - he wasn't performing any task related with his job nor was there any risk inherent in his employment when accident occurred - hence no liability fell upon Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Davis, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to impose liability on an interstate carrier for injuries sustained by one of its employees was inconsistent with federal law. He contended that Congress had already established a comprehensive scheme governing such liabilities through the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), and thus, it should be interpreted as preempting any conflicting state laws. According to him, allowing states to impose additional or different standards would undermine uniformity in this area of law and could potentially burden interstate commerce. Therefore, he believed that the judgment of the state court should have been reversed.