In the case of Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company v. Yurkonis (1914), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, Yurkonis, was an employee who sustained injuries while working for the defendant's rail line and sought compensation under Pennsylvania’s Employer’s Liability Act. However, his employment contract stipulated that any disputes would be governed by New Jersey law - where such claims were not recognized at that time. The court held that since both parties had agreed to this provision freely and without coercion or fraud involved, it should be upheld as valid despite its potential unfairness to employees injured on duty in states with more favorable laws like Pennsylvania. This decision underscored a key principle: freedom of contract is paramount unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company v. Yurkonis (1914), it was argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to an injured railroad worker contradicted previous rulings and interpretations of federal law. The dissenting justices believed that the Federal Employers' Liability Act should be interpreted broadly in favor of employees, not narrowly as done by the majority. They contended that any injury occurring within a work environment where interstate commerce is conducted should fall under this act's jurisdiction, regardless if at the exact moment of injury interstate commerce was being directly engaged in or not. In their view, Mr.Yurkonis’s injuries were sustained while he was employed on a project integral to interstate trade; thus his claim fell squarely within FELA’s purview and deserved compensation.