In the case of Frese, Administratrix of Frese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (1923), Mrs. Frese sued the railroad company for damages following her husband's death in a train accident while he was working as an employee for the company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), it is not enough to show that injury or death could have been avoided if certain measures were taken by employers; rather, it must be proven that negligence on part of employer led directly to harm or fatality. In this case, there wasn't sufficient evidence presented showing direct causation between Mr.Frese’s death and any negligent act from his employer.

In the dissenting opinion for Frese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a verdict in favor of the railroad company was incorrect because it ignored key evidence presented by Mrs. Frese. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant questions about whether or not Mr. Frese had been negligent at the time of his death and if he knew about potential dangers associated with his work on the railroad tracks. They also pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies provided by employees of the railway company which could have influenced jury's decision-making process during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they criticized how lower courts handled this case as well as their interpretation and application of laws related to employer liability and negligence claims made by workers' families after fatal accidents occur on job sites.