In the case of Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Ives in 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an employee injured while working for a railway company. The plaintiff, Mr. Ives, was hurt due to negligence by his fellow employees and sought compensation from his employer, Grand Trunk Railway Company. The court had to decide whether or not the company could be held liable for injuries caused by its workers' negligence under common law principles known as "fellow servant rule". This rule generally absolved employers from liability if an employee's injury was caused by another worker rather than direct fault of the employer itself. The Supreme Court upheld this principle and ruled in favor of Grand Trunk Railway Company stating that it wasn't responsible for damages resulting from one employee’s negligent actions towards another unless there is proof that they failed their duty to provide safe work conditions or equipment which wasn’t proven here. Thus, Mr.Ives’ claim against his employer was dismissed.

In the dissenting opinion for Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Ives, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to hold an employer liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to a fellow worker's negligence was unjust and unprecedented. He contended that this ruling would unfairly burden employers with liability they could not control or predict, as it is impossible for them to prevent all instances of negligence among their employees. Furthermore, he believed that such a rule would discourage employment and hinder economic growth because of the increased risk associated with hiring workers. This view held that responsibility should lie primarily with individuals who directly cause harm through their negligent actions rather than placing undue blame on employers.