In the case of Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, Harrison, was a worker who had been injured on the job and sought compensation under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, his claim was denied by both lower courts due to lack of evidence proving negligence on part of his employer. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it upheld these decisions stating that FELA requires proof beyond mere speculation or conjecture for an employee to recover damages from their employer for injuries sustained during employment. Therefore, without substantial evidence showing that Missouri Pacific Railroad Company's negligence directly led to Harrison's injury he could not be awarded any damages under FELA.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found the railroad company liable for injuries sustained by an employee, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant factual disputes regarding whether or not the plaintiff had been negligent and if this negligence contributed to his injury. It also disagreed with how causation was determined in this case, arguing that it should have been left up to a jury rather than decided by judges. Furthermore, it believed that federal law did not require employers like railroads to provide an absolutely safe workplace but only one free from negligence on their part. Therefore, they felt liability should be based on proof of employer negligence rather than simply because an accident occurred at work.