In the case of Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Berry, 1931, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railroad worker who was injured on the job due to negligence by his employer, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company (B&O). The plaintiff, Mr. Berry had been working for B&O when he fell from a moving train and lost his leg as a result of an unsafe work environment created by B&O's failure to provide adequate safety measures or equipment for its employees. The court held that under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which protects railroad workers from workplace injuries caused by their employers' negligence, Mr. Berry was entitled to compensation for his injury despite having assumed some risk inherent in railway work because such risks were exacerbated by B&O's negligent conduct.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Berry, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissenting justices believed that FELA should be interpreted to hold employers liable for injuries sustained by their employees during work-related travel, even if those injuries were not directly caused by negligence on part of the employer or co-workers. They contended that this broader interpretation was more consistent with Congress's intent when passing FELA - to protect railroad workers from hazards inherent in their occupation and provide them a remedy when injured on duty irrespective of fault attribution. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority ruling which absolved B&O Railroad Company from liability for Mr.Berry’s injury arguing it wasn't due to company's negligence but rather an unfortunate accident.