In the case of Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 1968, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Long Island Rail Road Co. The plaintiff, Grunenthal, was injured while attempting to board a moving train operated by the defendant and sued for damages under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, it was found that he had been drinking prior to his attempt to board and thus contributed significantly towards his own injury. Under FELA's comparative negligence standard - which reduces an award proportionally with respect to how much fault is assigned to each party involved - this meant that any compensation awarded would be reduced accordingly. The jury initially awarded him $150k but reduced it by 80% due its finding that he was primarily at fault for his injuries because of intoxication; hence he received only $30k as final settlement amount.

In the dissenting opinion for Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of an injured railroad worker under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) was incorrect. The dissent contended that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove negligence on part of the employer, which is necessary under FELA. They believed that allowing such a verdict without clear proof of negligence could set a dangerous precedent where employers are held liable for injuries even when they have not acted negligently or recklessly. This, according to them, would undermine one of the fundamental principles underlying tort law and potentially lead to unjust outcomes in future cases.