In the 1956 case of Herdman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee during his lunch break on its premises. The plaintiff, Mr. Herdman, was injured when he slipped and fell on ice while walking to eat his lunch in a cabin provided by the defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company. He argued that under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which provides broad protections for railroad workers, he should receive compensation from his employer for his injury. The court ruled in favor of Pennsylvania Railroad Co., stating that FELA did not apply because Mr. Herdman's accident occurred outside working hours and thus did not arise out of or occur within the course of employment as required by FELA provisions. This decision clarified that employers are generally not responsible under FELA for injuries occurring during non-working periods even if they happen on their property unless there is some direct connection between work duties and injury.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Herdman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the railroad company, was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was handled and interpreted during trial proceedings. They contended that certain pieces of evidence should have been admitted into consideration by the jury but were not due to erroneous rulings by the trial judge. This included expert testimony regarding safety standards within railway operations and potential negligence on part of Pennsylvania Railroad Co.. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation had been established between Mr.Herdman’s injuries and alleged negligent acts committed by his employer (the defendant). In their view, this case presented questions about workplace safety regulations and employers' responsibilities towards their employees’ well-being; these matters required more thorough examination than what transpired at trial level. Therefore, they felt an opportunity for justice had been missed when such critical aspects got overlooked or misinterpreted leading to a verdict favoring defendants without proper scrutiny into all relevant facts.