In the case of Kennedy et al. v. Silas Mason Co., 1947, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a subcontractor could be held liable for damages under Section 1 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiffs were employees of Silas Mason Co., a subcontractor hired to construct an aqueduct in Arizona. They alleged that they had been injured due to negligence on part of their employer and sought compensation under FELA, which allows railroad workers to sue employers for injuries sustained during employment. The court ruled in favor of Silas Mason Co., stating that it did not fall within the purview of FELA as it was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time when these incidents occurred. It clarified that while constructing facilities used by railroads can be considered as participating in interstate commerce, this does not apply if such construction is incidental or preparatory work done before actual operation begins. This decision set precedent regarding how broadly 'interstate commerce' should be interpreted within context of FELA and other similar legislation - emphasizing necessity for direct involvement rather than peripheral or potential future engagement.

In the dissenting opinion for Kennedy et al. v. Silas Mason Co., Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contract clause limiting liability was unjust and contrary to public policy. He contended that such clauses allow corporations to evade responsibility for their actions, which can lead to harm without any recourse for those affected. Furthermore, he believed this ruling contradicted previous court decisions where similar clauses were deemed unenforceable due to being against public interest. In his view, allowing companies like Silas Mason Co., who are often in superior bargaining positions compared with individual workers or consumers, to limit their own liability is fundamentally unfair and undermines faith in the justice system.