In the case of Christopher et al. v. Brusselback et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad workers' rights under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiffs, two railroad employees, were injured while working and claimed their employer was negligent in providing safe working conditions. They sought compensation for their injuries under FELA but faced opposition from their employer who argued that they had assumed risk by continuing to work despite knowing about unsafe conditions. However, the court held that an employee's knowledge of danger does not necessarily mean they have voluntarily assumed risk if they continue to work out of economic necessity or loyalty to their job. Therefore, such knowledge should not be used as a defense against claims made under FELA unless it can be proven that employees willingly accepted risks associated with known hazards without any coercion or pressure from employers.

In the dissenting opinion for Christopher et al. v. Brusselback et al., Justice Butler argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which allowed creditors to collect from both a corporation and its shareholders, was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court. He contended that this decision would undermine limited liability protections for corporations and their shareholders, thereby discouraging investment in businesses due to increased financial risk. Furthermore, he believed it was unfair for creditors who had willingly extended credit to a corporation on terms agreed upon by both parties to then seek additional compensation from individual shareholders when they knew or should have known about the risks involved in lending money to corporations.