Kreiger v. Shelby Railroad Company and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, John Kreiger, and the defendants, the Shelby Railroad Company and others. Kreiger 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 Kreiger, finding that the railroad company had been negligent in its duty to provide a safe working environment. The Court held that the company had failed to provide adequate safety measures and had failed to properly train its employees. The Court also held that the company was liable for the injuries suffered by Kreiger and awarded him damages. This case established the principle that employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees. It also established that employers can be held liable for injuries suffered by their employees due to their negligence. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving workplace safety and employer negligence.

In Krieger v. Shelby Railroad Company and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an interstate railroad company in a case involving injuries sustained by one of its employees while working on the railroad's tracks in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it would be unconstitutional for states to interfere with interstate commerce. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had given states authority over certain aspects of interstate railroads and thus they could exercise their power within reasonable limits when dealing with such companies. He argued further that if Congress intended otherwise then it should pass legislation explicitly stating so rather than leaving it up to courts to interpret congressional intent through constitutional analysis.