In Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee during his lunch break, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mr. Edwards, was injured when he slipped on ice while returning from lunch in a nearby town to his work site at a rail yard owned by Pacific Fruit Express Company. He argued that since he had been required to take his meals off-site due to lack of facilities provided by the employer and because there were no eating establishments near enough for him not have risked being late back from meal breaks if used them, this constituted part of his employment service and thus FELA should apply. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Edwards stating that it is reasonable for employees who are compelled by circumstances or rules set out by their employers which necessitate leaving premises during meal hours would still be considered as acting within course of employment even if they get injured away from workplace.

In the dissenting opinion for Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co., the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an injured railroad worker was incorrect. The dissenting justice believed that there were significant issues with how liability was determined in this case, particularly regarding whether or not negligence on behalf of Pacific Fruit Express could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. They also took issue with what they perceived as an overly broad interpretation of federal safety statutes and regulations by the majority, arguing that these laws were never intended to cover every possible scenario where a worker might get hurt on the job. Furthermore, they felt it was inappropriate for courts to impose such stringent standards on employers without clear legislative intent from Congress supporting such measures. Overall, their view suggested caution against judicial overreach and emphasized strict adherence to statutory language when determining employer responsibility under federal law.