The U.S. Supreme Court case Erie Railroad Company v. Kirkendall in 1924 revolved around the issue of liability for injuries sustained by an employee, Mr. Kirkendall, while working on a railroad owned by the Erie Railroad Company. The plaintiff argued that he was injured due to negligence on part of his employer and sought compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, the company contended that they were not liable as per New York state law which stated that employers are not responsible if employees willingly assume risks associated with their job roles knowing fully well about them beforehand - a principle known as "assumption of risk". The court ruled in favor of Mr. Kirkendall stating that FELA superseded state laws regarding worker's compensation and held employers accountable for workplace accidents caused due to their negligence regardless of whether workers knew about potential hazards or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Erie Railroad Company v. Kirkendall, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was not intended to change common law rules regarding contributory negligence and assumption of risk in cases involving railroad workers injured on the job. Instead, he believed it only aimed to make railroads liable for injuries caused by their negligence, regardless of whether or not an employee also acted negligently. According to him, if a worker willingly takes on a dangerous task knowing its risks and gets hurt as a result, they should be barred from recovery under FELA because they assumed those risks voluntarily. The majority’s decision allowing such claims would lead to unjust results where employees could act recklessly without consequences while employers bear all responsibility even when they were not entirely at fault.