Jones v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, William Jones, and the defendant, the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company. Jones had been employed by the railroad company as a brakeman and was injured while on the job. He sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in providing a safe working environment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones, finding that the railroad company had been negligent in providing a safe working environment and that Jones was entitled to damages. The Court held that the railroad company had a duty to provide a safe working environment and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for Jones' injuries and awarded him damages. The decision in Jones v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company established the principle that employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees and that they can be held liable for any injuries that occur as a result of their negligence. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving workplace safety and employer negligence.

In the dissenting opinion of Jones v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company, Justice Field argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law granting an individual the right to sue in federal court for damages caused by a railroad company's negligence. He reasoned that such power was reserved exclusively for state legislatures under the Tenth Amendment and could not be delegated to Congress or any other branch of government. Furthermore, he believed that allowing individuals to bring suit against railroads would lead to increased litigation costs which would ultimately be passed on as higher rates charged by railroads—a result which would harm consumers who rely on these services. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that it was up to each state legislature alone whether they wanted their citizens have access rights against railroad companies operating within their borders; thus making this case one where only states should have jurisdiction over disputes involving interstate commerce rather than federal courts.