In the case of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Robert McBride (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of McBride, a locomotive engineer who had been injured on the job and claimed that his employer, CSX Transportation, was liable under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The company argued that it should only be held responsible if its negligence was determined to be the primary cause of injury; however, FELA states that employers are liable if their negligence played any part in causing an employee's injuries. The court upheld this standard by a 5-4 vote and rejected CSX’s argument for adopting common-law proximate causation standards which would require proof that employer negligence is more than just one contributing factor among others leading to harm or damage.

In the dissenting opinion for CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Robert McBride (2010), Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that the majority misinterpreted the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The dissent contended that FELA should be interpreted in line with common law principles of negligence unless Congress explicitly stated otherwise. They disagreed with the majority's view that an employee only needs to show his injury resulted 'in whole or in part' from employer negligence under FELA. Instead, they believed employees must also prove proximate cause - a direct link between employer negligence and their injuries - as is required under traditional tort law principles. The dissent criticized the majority for disregarding this requirement without clear evidence of Congressional intent to do so when drafting FELA.