In the 1947 case Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, overturning a lower court's decision. The plaintiff, Mrs. Briggs, was suing on behalf of her husband who died while working for the railroad company due to an accident caused by negligence from another employee. The Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) allows employees or their families to sue employers for damages if they are injured as a result of employer negligence; however, it does not cover injuries resulting from fellow workers' carelessness unless that carelessness reflects some fault on part of the employer itself. The Supreme Court held that under FELA, an employer is not liable when one worker’s negligence causes injury or death to another worker unless there is proof that such negligent act resulted from some policy, direction or control exercised by the employer over its workers’ actions which led directly to harm being inflicted upon them. This ruling clarified and narrowed down interpretations regarding liability under FELA and set precedence for future cases involving workplace accidents where co-worker's negligence was involved but did not reflect any direct fault on part of employers themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for an employee's death, despite no clear evidence of negligence on their part, was unjust and set a dangerous precedent. He contended that this ruling effectively shifted the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in violation of traditional legal principles. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this could impact future cases by encouraging speculative lawsuits based on mere possibility rather than concrete evidence of wrongdoing or negligence. In his view, such an approach would undermine fairness and justice in civil litigation proceedings.