In the case of Barber v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company (1896), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of another employee. The plaintiff, William H. Barber, was injured while working as a brakeman when he fell from his train because it had been negligently switched onto the wrong track by another railway worker. He sued for damages under Indiana state law which allowed employees to sue their employers for injuries caused by fellow servants' negligence if they were engaged in different kinds of work or service. The court ruled in favor of the defendant railroad company stating that both workers were involved in common employment and thus shared risks associated with such employment including each other's negligent acts; hence, no liability should attach to employer under these circumstances according to federal common law principles then prevailing known as "fellow servant rule". This decision reflected courts’ reluctance during this period towards expanding employer’s liability beyond traditional boundaries set forth under doctrine of respondeat superior.

In the dissenting opinion for Barber v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court. He contended that a railroad company should be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of its other employees. The principle established in prior cases was clear: when a corporation accepts benefits from services rendered by its workers, it must also bear responsibility for any harm they suffer as a result of negligent acts committed by fellow servants within their scope of employment. This rule applied regardless if those at fault were ordinary employees or high-ranking officials like superintendents or managers who had authority over others' work conditions and safety measures but did not have control over general management policies or decisions about hiring/firing staff members which would make them vice-principals instead under common law rules differentiating between types/classes/categories/levels/ranks/orders/grades/kinds/varieties/types/sorts/manners/forms/styles/modes/natures/species/breeds/genera etc., according to him.