In the case of Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 1955, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railroad worker who had been injured on the job. The plaintiff, John J. Cahill was an employee of the defendant company and while performing his duties he fell from a ladder due to its defective condition which resulted in serious injuries. He brought action against his employer under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The court held that it was not necessary for Mr.Cahill to prove negligence on part of his employer as FELA imposes liability upon employers to provide safe work environment and equipment for their employees; thus making them liable even if they were unaware about unsafe conditions or defects in equipments used by workers during course of employment.

In the dissenting opinion for Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow a jury to decide on matters of negligence was inappropriate and overstepped their judicial authority. He contended that it is not within a jury’s purview to determine whether safety measures taken by an employer were adequate or if they constituted negligence, as this would require specialized knowledge beyond their scope. Instead, he believed such decisions should be made by regulatory bodies with expertise in specific industries who can set clear standards for what constitutes reasonable care under given circumstances. By allowing juries to make these determinations without any established standard or guideline, he feared it could lead to arbitrary rulings based solely on sympathy towards injured parties rather than objective evaluation of facts and law.