In the 1940 case of Breisch v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Central Railroad. The plaintiff, Mrs. Breisch had filed a lawsuit against the railroad company for negligence after her husband died from injuries sustained while working on their premises as an independent contractor's employee. She claimed that his death was due to unsafe conditions which were not disclosed by the railroad company before he started work there and thus they should be held responsible for it under Pennsylvania law where she resided and where her husband usually worked despite him being injured in New Jersey. However, since Mr.Breisch’s injury occurred in New Jersey - whose laws did not hold principal employers liable for such accidents involving independent contractors' employees - this jurisdiction prevailed over Pennsylvania law according to federal common law rules regarding conflict-of-laws at that time (First Restatement). Therefore, even though Mrs.Breisch would have been entitled to compensation if Pennsylvania law applied instead because it held principal employers liable under similar circumstances; she lost her claim as per applicable legal principles then.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Breisch v. Central Railroad of New Jersey argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider relevant state laws. The dissent emphasized that under Pennsylvania law, which should apply in this case as it is where the accident occurred, a railroad company owes a duty of care to all individuals on its property - not just passengers or employees. Therefore, regardless of whether Mr. Breisch was technically considered an employee at the time he sustained his injuries, he still had legal protection against negligence by the railroad company under state law. Furthermore, they disagreed with how narrowly majority interpreted federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), arguing instead for broader interpretation that would cover more workers like Mr.Breisch who are injured while performing work-related tasks even if they're not officially "on duty". They believed this approach better aligns with FELA’s purpose – protecting railway workers from harm caused by their employers’ negligence.