The U.S. Supreme Court case Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Cockrell Administrator in 1913 revolved around the death of a railway employee, Mr. Cockrell, who was killed while on duty due to an alleged negligence by his employer, the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. The deceased's estate filed a lawsuit against the company seeking damages for wrongful death under Kentucky law which allowed recovery if an individual’s death was caused by another party's wrongful act or omission. However, the railway company argued that they were not liable as per federal law - specifically citing the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) which required proof of negligence and did not allow lawsuits based solely on "wrongful acts". They contended that FELA superseded state laws where it applied. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cockrell’s estate stating that FELA did not preclude application of state laws allowing recovery for wrongful deaths caused without proven negligence unless such claims directly conflicted with terms within FELA itself.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Cockrell Administrator argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Kentucky law, which they believed did not require an employer to warn employees about dangers inherent in their work unless those dangers were unusually severe or hidden. They also disagreed with the majority's view that it was reasonable for Cockrell to assume he would be safe from passing trains while working near railroad tracks, arguing instead that such a belief would have been unreasonable given his experience and knowledge as a railway worker. The dissenters further contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that negligence by Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co had caused Cockrell’s death.