The Central Vermont Railway Company v. White case in 1914 revolved around the issue of liability for a railway accident that resulted in the death of an employee, Mr. Whit. The plaintiff, Mrs. White (the widow and administratrix of Mr. Whit's estate), argued that the company was negligent as it failed to provide safe working conditions which led to her husband's death while he was performing his duties on a moving train car without proper safety measures or equipment in place. The defendant, Central Vermont Railway Company, countered by asserting contributory negligence on part of Mr.Whit who they claimed had not exercised due caution despite being aware of potential risks involved with his job. However, upon review and consideration of all evidence presented before them including testimonies from other employees about unsafe work practices at the company; The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.White stating that there were indeed grounds for holding the railway company liable under federal law - specifically citing violations against Employer’s Liability Act which required employers to ensure worker safety.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Vermont Railway Company v. White, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of both state and federal law. The dissent contended that under Vermont law, a railway company is not liable for injuries to an employee caused by fellow employees unless negligence can be proven on part of the employer or if there's violation of statutory duty. They also disagreed with the majority's application of Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), arguing that FELA did not intend to change common-law rules regarding liability but merely provided an additional remedy when employers were found negligent. Therefore, they believed that without evidence proving negligence on part of Central Vermont Railway Company or violation of any safety statute, no liability should be imposed upon them as per existing laws at both levels - state and federal.