In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. McLaughlin, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Chesapeake & Ohio Railway collided with a wagon driven by McLaughlin, resulting in his death. His widow sued for damages under Kentucky law which allowed recovery if negligence could be proven on part of the defendant and no contributory negligence was present on part of deceased. However, as per Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), contributory negligence did not bar recovery but only diminished it proportionately to fault attributed to deceased employee. The court held that FELA applied since accident occurred during interstate commerce activity and thus federal law superseded state law even though plaintiff had initially chosen to proceed under state statute instead of FELA.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. McLaughlin, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a damages award against the railway company was incorrect because it relied on an overly broad interpretation of employer liability under federal law. The dissent contended that employers should not be held responsible for injuries sustained by employees in situations where they could not have reasonably foreseen or prevented such incidents from occurring. In this case, there were no clear indications that would suggest to the railway company that its employee might be injured while performing his duties at work. Therefore, according to this view, holding them liable and requiring them to pay compensation is unjustified and inconsistent with established legal principles governing workplace safety and employer responsibility.