The case of Flannelly v. Delaware and Hudson Co., in 1911, revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of an employment contract. The plaintiff, John J. Flannelly, was employed by the defendant company as a brakeman but was injured while performing duties outside his job description without additional compensation or consent to such tasks. He sued for damages on grounds that he had been wrongfully compelled to perform these extra duties which led to his injury. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that under common law principles governing master-servant relationships at the time, employees were expected to undertake any lawful work their employers required during working hours unless specifically exempted by their contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Flannelly v. Delaware and Hudson Co., it was argued that the plaintiff should have been allowed to present his case before a jury, as he had sufficient evidence to support his claim of negligence on part of the defendant company. The dissenting justices believed that there were questions about whether or not proper precautions were taken by the company in relation to safety measures at their worksite, which could only be resolved through a trial. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of Pennsylvania law regarding employer liability, arguing that it did not absolve employers from taking reasonable care for employee safety. Therefore, they contended that dismissing plaintiff’s suit without allowing him an opportunity to prove negligence was unjust.