In the 1909 case of Brill v. Washington Railway and Electric Company, the U.S Supreme Court examined a dispute over damages for personal injury. The plaintiff, Brill, was injured when he fell from a moving streetcar operated by the defendant company. He claimed that his fall was due to sudden acceleration of the car while he was in process of alighting it; however, there were conflicting testimonies regarding this claim. The trial court ruled in favor of Brill but on appeal, the appellate court reversed this decision stating that there wasn't enough evidence to prove negligence on part of railway company's employees or any violation by them which could have contributed to accident causing injuries to plaintiff. The Supreme Court upheld this reversal stating that although companies are required under law to exercise highest degree care towards their passengers' safety until they have safely exited vehicle; yet if passenger chooses not follow rules set out for safe exit (like waiting for vehicle stop before getting off), then they cannot hold company liable unless it can be proven beyond doubt that some action or neglect on part operator directly led accident happening.

In the dissenting opinion for Brill v. Washington Railway and Electric Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an injured employee failed to adequately consider the negligence on part of the employee himself. The dissent emphasized that while employers should indeed be held responsible for maintaining safe working conditions, employees also have a duty to exercise reasonable care and caution in performing their tasks. In this case, they believed that Mr. Brill had not done so when he chose to work near live wires without taking necessary precautions or seeking assistance from his superiors despite being aware of potential risks involved with electricity. Therefore, according to them, his injuries were largely due to his own recklessness rather than any fault on part of the company.