The Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. case in 1948 revolved around a wrongful death claim filed by the administratrix of the estate of Charles Eckenrode, who was killed while working for the railroad company due to an alleged negligence on their part. The main issue at hand was whether or not evidence presented during trial could be deemed sufficient enough to support a jury's verdict that found Pennsylvania Railroad Company liable under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, overturning previous rulings from lower courts which had sided with plaintiff. They concluded that there wasn't substantial evidence proving negligence on behalf of Pennsylvania Railroad Company directly leading to Mr.Eckenrode’s death and thus they couldn’t be held responsible under FELA.

In the dissenting opinion for Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Douglas and Murphy, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the railroad company was incorrect. They contended that it was not clear whether Mrs. Eckenrode had been adequately informed about her legal rights before she signed a release form absolving the railroad company of liability for her husband's death. The dissenting justices believed there were significant questions regarding whether Mrs. Eckenrode fully understood what she was signing and if she received competent advice from an attorney or other knowledgeable person prior to doing so; they felt these issues should have warranted further investigation at trial rather than dismissal on summary judgment as decided by both lower courts and affirmed by Supreme Court’s majority opinion.