In the case of Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co., 1965, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of another employee. The plaintiff, Mr. Gunther, was injured while working as a brakeman when he fell from a moving train car that had been negligently uncoupled by another worker. He sued his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which holds railroads responsible for injuries to their employees resulting from co-worker negligence. The railway company argued it should not be held accountable because there were no specific rules or instructions violated in this incident and thus they couldn't foresee such accident happening due to lack of explicit safety regulations being broken. However, the court ruled in favor of Mr.Gunther stating that FELA does not require violation of any specific rule or instruction but rather focuses on whether injury resulted from negligence which includes foreseeable risks even if they aren't explicitly outlined in safety guidelines.

In the dissenting opinion for Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a plaintiff to recover damages under federal law for injuries sustained while working on an interstate railroad, even though he had already received compensation under state workers' compensation laws, undermined the purpose of those state laws. The dissent contended that these laws were designed to provide quick and certain relief to injured workers without requiring them to prove negligence or fault on part of their employers. By allowing double recovery in this case, they believed it would encourage litigation and discourage settlement negotiations between employees and employers which is contrary to what worker’s compensation statutes aim at achieving - reducing court congestion by promoting out-of-court settlements. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on insurance rates if such double recovery became widespread.