In the case of Harsh v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co., 1954, the plaintiff, Mr. Harsh, was an employee of the defendant company who sustained injuries while working on a railroad track in Missouri. He filed a lawsuit under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for damages due to negligence and unsafe work conditions against his employer in Illinois where he resided and where the company had its principal place of business. The Supreme Court ruled that although FELA gives federal courts jurisdiction over such cases regardless of diversity or amount involved, it does not confer venue upon any particular district court unless there is substantial evidence that cause arose there. The court held that since all events leading up to injury occurred outside Illinois - hiring took place elsewhere; injury happened out-of-state; no direct supervision from within state - therefore venue was improperly laid in District Court for Southern District of Illinois. The decision emphasized importance of proper venue selection based on actual circumstances surrounding claim rather than mere convenience or preference by plaintiff.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harsh v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co., argued that the majority's decision to deny recovery for injuries sustained by a trespasser on railroad property was unjust and failed to consider important factors. The dissent emphasized that while it is true that railroads are not obligated to ensure safety for trespassers, they should still be held accountable if their negligence leads directly to harm. In this particular case, the plaintiff was injured due to an unguarded and unlocked switch stand left in a dangerous position near a public pathway - something which could have been easily avoided with basic precautions from the railroad company. Thus, according to the dissenting justices, liability should have been imposed upon Illinois Terminal Railroad Co., as their lack of care resulted in foreseeable injury.