In the 1917 case of Erie Railroad Company v. Hilt, an infant by his next friend et al., the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law could impose liability on a railroad company for injuries sustained by an employee in another state while performing duties related to interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Hilt, was injured in Pennsylvania while working for Erie Railroad but sought compensation under New York's Employer's Liability Act because he had been hired there and his contract stipulated that any legal disputes would be settled according to New York law. The court ruled against Hilt and held that states cannot regulate matters of interstate commerce as it is within federal jurisdiction only. It further stated that applying different laws from various states where railroads operate would create confusion and interfere with uniformity necessary for smooth operation of such businesses engaged in interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Erie Railroad Company v. Hilt, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a judgment in favor of an injured child trespasser on railroad property set a dangerous precedent. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling effectively placed an undue burden on landowners by requiring them to anticipate and prevent potential harm to trespassers, even those who enter their property unlawfully and without permission. They further asserted that such a requirement could lead to absurd results, as it would be impossible for landowners to foresee every possible scenario in which someone might illegally enter their property and subsequently sustain injuries. Therefore, they believed that the court should have reversed the lower court's judgment against Erie Railroad Company.