In the case of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Brown in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an employee injury claim against his employer, a railway company. The plaintiff, Mr. Brown was injured while working for the defendant railway company when he fell from a ladder that was allegedly defective due to negligence by his employer. The court had to decide whether or not federal law applied since it involved interstate commerce or if state law should be used instead as per usual practice in personal injury cases at workplaces. The Supreme Court held that federal law did apply because of its jurisdiction over interstate commerce matters and affirmed the lower court's decision which awarded damages to Mr. Brown based on this interpretation of applicable laws under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). This ruling set precedence for future cases where employees engaged in work related to interstate commerce could seek redress under FELA rather than being limited only by their respective state’s workers’ compensation statutes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Brown argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable for injuries sustained by Brown was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company. It emphasized that accidents can occur without anyone being at fault, and it is unjust to automatically assign blame simply because an accident occurred while someone was performing their job duties. Furthermore, they believed it should not be assumed that a worker would have avoided injury if he had been given specific instructions about potential dangers associated with his work; adults are expected to exercise reasonable care for their own safety even in absence of warnings or instructions from employers. Therefore, according to this view, unless clear proof of negligence could be provided against the employer (in this case - failure in duty), liability should not be assigned.