In the case of Grand Trunk Western Railway Company v. Lindsay in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an employee injury claim against his employer, a railway company. The plaintiff, Mr. Lindsay was injured while working for the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company and sought compensation under Michigan state law which allowed employees to sue their employers for injuries sustained due to negligence or other wrongful acts by co-workers or superiors. However, the defendant argued that federal laws should apply instead as they were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of incident - these laws would limit their liability significantly compared to state provisions. The court sided with Mr. Lindsay stating that although railroads are involved in interstate commerce and thus subject to federal regulation; it does not exempt them from complying with local safety regulations where they operate if those rules do not interfere with interstate commerce directly nor contradict any existing federal statutes specifically addressing such matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Grand Trunk Western Railway Company v. Lindsay, it was argued that the court majority erred in their interpretation of liability under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissenting justices believed that FELA did not intend to impose absolute liability on employers for injuries sustained by employees during work-related travel. They contended that an employer's duty is only to provide reasonably safe conditions and tools, not guarantee safety against all possible harm or accidents. In this case, they felt there wasn't enough evidence proving negligence on part of the railway company leading to Mr. Lindsay's injury; hence it should not be held liable for damages. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation was determined by a jury rather than as a matter of law by judges which could lead to inconsistent rulings based on emotional appeals rather than legal principles.