In the case of Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Railway Company v. Anderson in 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an injured railway worker's right to compensation. The plaintiff, Anderson, was a switchman who suffered injuries while working for the defendant company and sought damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The railway company argued that FELA did not apply as it was incorporated in Indiana and its operations were primarily within that state. However, because some of its tracks extended into Illinois making it involved in interstate commerce at times relevant to this case; thus FELA applied according to lower courts. Upon appeal by the railroad company, however,the Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that just because a portion of track extends across state lines does not necessarily mean all employees are engaged in interstate commerce at all times. Therefore they concluded Mr.Anderson’s injury occurred during intrastate work so he could not claim under FELA.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Railway Company v. Anderson, it was argued that there was no legal basis to hold a railway company liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotive engines igniting flammable materials on nearby property. The dissenting justices contended that such an occurrence should be considered an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of operating a railroad rather than negligence on part of the company. They further asserted that holding companies responsible in these situations would set a dangerous precedent and could potentially cripple industries vital to national growth and development. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Anderson's claim against the railway company.