In the 1912 case Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Carl, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a train due to his own negligence. The plaintiff, Mr. Carl, had been employed as a brakeman and while attempting to couple cars in motion he slipped and fell under the wheels of one of them resulting in serious injury including amputation of both legs above the knee. He sued his employer claiming that they were negligent because they failed to provide him with safe equipment or warn him about potential dangers associated with coupling moving cars. The court ruled against Mr.Carl stating that it is not within their jurisdiction to change established principles regarding liability for personal injuries caused by negligence at work unless there are clear indications that Congress intended such changes when drafting relevant legislation (in this case Federal Employers' Liability Act). They further stated that employees should take reasonable care when performing dangerous tasks even if employers fail to provide adequate safety measures or warnings about potential risks involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Carl, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable for damages caused by a fire that started from sparks emitted by one of its locomotives. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company and emphasized that it is not enough to show merely that damage resulted from a spark without showing some fault in relation to it. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding whether or not there were any defects in the engine’s spark arrester which could have prevented such an incident. In his view, these uncertainties should have been resolved before holding the defendant responsible for damages.