In the Brooks v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. case of 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of an injured railroad worker who sued his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mr. Brooks, was a switchman for Missouri Pacific Railroad and suffered injuries when he fell from a ladder on one of their cars due to icy conditions that were not properly addressed by his employer. The company argued that they should not be held liable as they had provided adequate equipment and safety measures according to industry standards at that time; however, it was found negligent because it failed to provide a reasonably safe place for its employees to work considering weather conditions which resulted in unsafe working environment leading to injury. This ruling set precedent emphasizing employers’ responsibility towards ensuring workplace safety irrespective of prevailing industry standards.

The dissenting opinion in the Brooks v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., case argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissent believed that FELA should be interpreted to cover injuries sustained by employees while they are on their employer's premises, regardless of whether or not they were actively engaged in work at the time. They contended that this interpretation would better align with Congress' intent when it enacted FELA - to provide broad protection for railroad workers against workplace hazards. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that an employee must be "on duty" at the time of injury to qualify for compensation under FELA, arguing instead for a more expansive understanding of what constitutes being "in course of employment".