In Barrett v. Virginian Railway Company (1918), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Virginian Railway Company, overturning a previous decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit that had awarded damages to plaintiff John H. Barrett for injuries sustained while working on an interstate railway line under construction in West Virginia. The court held that because Mr. Barrett was not engaged in "interstate commerce" at the time of his injury but rather was involved in constructing new facilities, he could not claim protection and compensation under federal law - specifically, Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). This ruling clarified that FELA only applied to employees who were actively engaged in interstate commerce at their time of injury.

In the dissenting opinion for Barrett v. Virginian Railway Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was not intended to change common law rules regarding negligence and causation but rather to ensure fair treatment for workers injured on interstate railways. According to him, under traditional principles of tort law, an employer is liable only when its negligence directly causes harm to an employee. In this case, he believed that there was no evidence showing a direct causal link between the railway company’s alleged negligence and Barrett's injury. Therefore, he concluded that it was inappropriate for liability to be imposed upon them based on mere speculation or conjecture about what might have caused his injuries.