In the case of Baker et al. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 1958, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Co., reversing a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs were employees who had been injured while working for the railway company and sought compensation under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). They claimed that their injuries resulted from negligence on part of their employer, specifically inadequate safety measures and equipment maintenance. However, it was found that they failed to provide sufficient evidence proving negligence directly caused their injuries as required by FELA standards. The court held that mere proof or inference that an injury could have possibly occurred due to employer's negligence is not enough; there must be substantial evidence showing direct causation between alleged negligent act and injury suffered.

In the dissenting opinion for Baker et al. v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the railway company, failed to properly apply federal law regarding negligence and liability in railroad accidents. The dissent contended that there were significant factual disputes about whether or not the railway had been negligent and if this negligence directly resulted in injury. These disputes should have been resolved by a jury rather than dismissed outright by a judge at summary judgment stage as they were material facts central to determining liability under federal law governing railroads' duties towards their employees’ safety. Furthermore, it was suggested that such an interpretation could potentially undermine workers' rights protections provided under these laws.