In the case of Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company v. White, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to the negligence of a fellow employee. The plaintiff, White, was a brakeman employed by the defendant, the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company. White was injured while performing his duties when a fellow employee, who was operating a switch engine, negligently caused the switch engine to collide with White's train. White sued the railroad company for damages, arguing that the company was liable for the negligence of its employee. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the negligence of its employee. The Court reasoned that the railroad company had a duty to use reasonable care in the selection and retention of its employees, and that it had failed to do so in this case. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the negligence of its employee because it had a duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees. The Court concluded that the railroad company was liable for White's injuries and awarded him damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company v. White, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a detrimental effect on railroad employees' rights. He argued that under existing law, an employee of a railroad company had the right to sue for damages if they were injured due to negligence or other fault on behalf of their employer. The majority opinion held that this right did not extend to cases where there was no negligence or fault by either party; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and argued that it undermined an important protection for workers who are often at risk of injury while performing dangerous tasks as part of their job duties. Furthermore, he noted that such a ruling could lead employers to be less vigilant about safety measures since they would know they cannot be sued even if something goes wrong due to lack of proper precautions being taken. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that Congress should pass legislation clarifying these issues rather than relying solely on judicial interpretations which may change over time depending upon who is sitting on the court bench at any given moment.