In the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McGinnis case of 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company against a claim by an employee who was injured while on duty. The plaintiff, Mr. McGinnis had been working for the railroad when he fell from a moving train due to alleged negligence on part of his employer - failure to provide safe equipment and adequate training. However, upon review, it was found that there were no federal laws or regulations requiring railroads to equip their cars with grab irons or handholds at specific locations where McGinnis attempted to board which led him falling off causing injuries. Furthermore, evidence showed that he had sufficient experience as a brakeman and knew how dangerous it could be trying to catch onto moving trains without proper support but still chose this course of action despite safer alternatives available such as waiting for the train to stop before boarding again. The court therefore concluded that his injury resulted primarily from his own recklessness rather than any negligence by his employer hence absolving Gulf Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company from liability in this incident.

In the dissenting opinion for Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McGinnis, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a damages award to an employee injured while working on a moving train. He argued that there was no evidence of negligence by the railway company as required under federal law at that time. The plaintiff had been employed in a dangerous job and knew its risks but chose to continue anyway; therefore, he should bear some responsibility for his injury according to contributory negligence principles. Furthermore, Holmes pointed out inconsistencies in how courts applied these principles across different cases involving similar circumstances which undermined their fairness and predictability.