In the 1959 case of Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Harris, was a former employee who had been injured on the job and sought compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He claimed that his injury resulted from negligence by his employer. However, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim during trial proceedings. The court held that without substantial proof of negligence directly causing harm or injury as required by FELA standards, an employer cannot be held liable for damages incurred by an employee while performing their duties at work. Therefore, due to lack of adequate evidence demonstrating direct causation between alleged negligence and sustained injuries presented before it during trial proceedings; thus leading to its decision in favoring Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

In the dissenting opinion for Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of an injured railroad worker under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove negligence on part of the railroad company, which is necessary under FELA. They contended that while accidents and injuries are unfortunate, they do not automatically imply negligence or fault by employers. Furthermore, they expressed concern over setting a precedent where juries could award damages without clear proof of employer negligence, potentially leading to unjust outcomes for businesses and organizations who may be held liable for circumstances beyond their control.