The U.S. Supreme Court case Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Jones, in 1915, revolved around the issue of employer liability for employee injuries sustained on the job. The plaintiff, Mrs. Jones as administratrix of her husband's estate, sued Kansas City Southern Railway Company after her husband was killed while working for them due to a faulty engine part that exploded and caused his death. She claimed negligence on their part and sought damages under Arkansas law which allowed recovery if an injury or death resulted from a defect in machinery provided by the employer. However, the railway company argued that they were not liable because Mr.Jones had assumed risk when he accepted employment with knowledge of potential dangers involved in his work; this defense was recognized under federal law but not state law where suit was brought. The Supreme Court ruled against the railway company stating that since it operated within Arkansas borders and its laws governed its operations there - including those related to worker safety - it could be held accountable under these laws even though they differed from federal regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Jones, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Arkansas law and an overreach of federal authority. He contended that it was not within the purview of the Supreme Court to interpret state laws unless there is clear evidence that they have been applied unconstitutionally or unfairly. In this case, he saw no such evidence and believed that Arkansas courts had correctly interpreted their own statutes in holding Kansas City Southern Railway liable for negligence leading to Jones' death. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view about what constituted "gross negligence" under Arkansas law, arguing instead for a more lenient interpretation which would hold companies accountable even if their employees were only slightly negligent. Ultimately, his dissent emphasized respect for states' rights and a restrained approach to judicial review.