In the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Bond, Administrator of Turner (1915), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The case revolved around a train accident that resulted in the death of an employee named Turner who was working for another railroad company at the time but on tracks owned by Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. The administrator of Turner's estate sued for damages under federal Employers' Liability Act which held employers liable for injuries to their employees due to negligence. However, since Turner was not employed by them directly and they did not have control over his actions or work conditions when he died, it was determined that they were not responsible for his safety as per this act. Therefore, despite lower courts ruling against them initially based on state laws regarding track owners being responsible regardlessly; upon appeal to higher court it reversed those decisions stating federal law superseded state ones in such matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Bond, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of a state law regarding liability for railway accidents. The dissenting justices believed that the law did not intend to hold railways liable for all accidents regardless of negligence or fault on their part. They contended that such an interpretation would be unreasonable and unjust, effectively making railway companies insurers against all possible harm coming from operation of trains - a burden no other industry is asked to bear. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar laws were interpreted by courts in different states and called for uniformity based on principles of fairness and justice rather than strict literal interpretations which could lead to absurd results.