In the case of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. De Atley, 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee while on duty. The plaintiff, Mr. De Atley, had been injured when he fell from a moving train car due to what he claimed were unsafe working conditions provided by his employer - Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company. He argued that under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which provides broad protections for railway workers injured on the job if their injury resulted in whole or in part from carrier negligence, his employer should compensate him for his injuries. The court ruled against Mr. De Atley stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on behalf of the railway company as required under FELA law standards; thus they couldn't be held responsible for providing compensation related to his accident-related injuries.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. De Atley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a damages award against the railway company was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove negligence on part of the railway company, which led to an employee's injury. They contended that mere speculation or conjecture should not be enough grounds for holding an employer liable in such cases. Furthermore, they expressed concern over setting a precedent where employers could be held responsible even when no specific act of negligence could be identified as causing harm to their employees. This viewpoint emphasized strict interpretation of liability laws and advocated for clear proof before assigning blame in workplace accidents.