In the case of Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company v. Hackett (1912), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, Hackett, was a passenger on one of their trains when he was injured due to an accident caused by negligence from another train's crew members. He sued for damages and won at both lower court levels in Indiana state courts. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court level it was determined that under federal law - specifically the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) - only employees could sue employers for injuries sustained while working due to employer negligence or violation of safety statutes; passengers were not included within this scope. Therefore, since Hackett wasn't an employee but a passenger during his injury incident on board their train service he had no grounds to sue under FELA as interpreted by this ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company v. Hackett, Justice Holmes argued that there was no evidence to suggest negligence on part of the railway company. He contended that it was not reasonable to assume negligence simply because an accident occurred. The plaintiff's injury could have been caused by a number of factors unrelated to any potential neglect from the defendant and thus, he believed it was inappropriate for liability to be placed solely on them without concrete proof. Furthermore, he pointed out that accidents can happen even when all precautions are taken and all duties fulfilled; therefore attributing fault in such cases is unjustified. In essence, his argument centered around requiring clear evidence before assigning blame or responsibility in instances involving personal injuries.