In the 1919 case Hull, Administratrix of Hull, &c. v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee while on duty. The plaintiff's husband had been killed in a railway accident and she sought compensation from his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The defendant argued that they were not responsible as there was no negligence involved in their part and that it was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. However, after reviewing evidence presented at trial level court which showed potential negligence on behalf of the railway company such as failure to provide safe working conditions or proper training for employees handling dangerous equipment; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Hull stating that FELA did indeed apply here and thus upheld her right to sue for damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Hull v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was a legal duty owed by the defendant to protect against such an accident occurring in this particular way and location. He contended that foreseeability of harm should be a key factor in determining liability, but he did not believe that this type of accident could have been reasonably foreseen by the railroad company given its unusual circumstances - involving a child playing on an unattended train car who accidentally released its brakes causing it to roll downhill into another person. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' view, since there wasn't any reasonable expectation for the railway company to anticipate and prevent such an incident from happening under these specific conditions, they shouldn't be held responsible for damages resulting from it.