In the case of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. McDonald, 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train conductor was killed while on duty due to an alleged defect in a car coupling mechanism that caused him to fall under moving cars. His administrator sued for damages under Kentucky law which held employers liable for injuries resulting from defective machinery supplied by them or their failure to provide safe appliances necessary for work. However, it was found that there were no federal safety appliance laws applicable at the time of his death and hence, state law could not be applied as it would interfere with interstate commerce regulation - a power exclusively vested in Congress by Constitution's Commerce Clause. Therefore, since there was no violation of any specific statutory duty imposed upon interstate carriers regarding equipment safety at that time period (prior enactment), liability couldn't be established against Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., leading to dismissal of plaintiff’s claim.

The dissenting opinion in the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. McDonald case argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of Virginia's state law regarding negligence. The dissent, led by Justice Holmes, contended that under Virginia law, a plaintiff could recover damages if they were able to prove that their injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence, even if they themselves were also negligent but less so than the defendant. This principle is known as contributory negligence. In this case, McDonald was killed while crossing railway tracks owned by Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company; both parties were found to be negligent but McDonald's negligence was deemed lesser compared to that of the company’s employee who failed to sound a warning whistle or bell when approaching an intersection where visibility was limited due to foggy weather conditions. Therefore according to Justice Holmes' understanding of Virginia law on contributory negligence, McDonald should have been allowed recovery for his injuries despite his own partial fault.