In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Gainey, Administrator of Dwyer (1915), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The case involved a fatal accident where an employee was killed while working on a moving train. The administrator for his estate sued for damages under federal law, claiming that negligence by the railway had caused his death. However, there was no direct evidence to support this claim and it relied heavily on circumstantial evidence which suggested possible negligence but did not conclusively prove it. The court held that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient to establish liability; there must be substantial proof showing that negligence directly resulted in injury or death. In this instance, because there were multiple potential causes for the accident and none could be definitively proven as being due to employer's negligence, no liability could be established against Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Gainey, Administrator of Dwyer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a verdict for damages against the railway company was unjustified due to lack of evidence proving negligence on part of the company. The dissent emphasized that there were no witnesses or direct evidence showing how or why Mr. Dwyer ended up being run over by a train and killed while walking along tracks owned by Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. It pointed out that it is equally plausible he could have been intoxicated, committed suicide, or simply fallen accidentally onto the track without any fault from the railway company itself. Therefore, according to this view, it was wrong for lower courts and now Supreme Court majority to infer negligence solely based on circumstances following his death such as finding him dead near railroad tracks with injuries consistent with being hit by a train.