In the case of Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 1959, plaintiff Inman was a railroad worker who suffered injuries while on duty and sued his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The Supreme Court had to decide whether an instruction given by the trial judge regarding negligence per se due to violation of a safety statute was correct or not. The court ruled in favor of Inman, stating that if it is found that any breach of statutory duty contributed even slightly to an employee's injury, then liability under FELA would be established. This ruling clarified how courts should interpret and apply FELA in cases where there has been a violation of safety statutes by employers leading to employee injury.

In the dissenting opinion for Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied damages to an injured railroad worker under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was designed specifically to provide broad protections for workers and shift responsibility onto employers, who are better equipped than individual employees to bear financial burdens of workplace accidents. The majority’s interpretation, he contended, undermines this purpose by imposing too high a standard of proof on plaintiffs seeking compensation for injuries sustained in inherently dangerous work environments. Furthermore, he criticized the Court's reliance on common law principles in interpreting FELA when Congress had intended it as a departure from those very principles. Thus, according to Justice Brennan's dissenting view, Mr. Inman should have been allowed recovery under FELA because his injury resulted from risks inherent in his employment.