In the Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Company case of 1909, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fairmont Coal Company, overturning a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Mr. Kuhn was an employee at one of Fairmont's mines and had been injured while on duty due to negligence on part of his fellow employees who were acting under orders from their superiors. He sued for damages but lost both in trial court and upon appeal to state supreme court which held that he could not recover since he was also negligent as per 'fellow servant rule'. However, when appealed to U.S Supreme Court it found that West Virginia law did not follow this doctrine anymore and instead followed comparative negligence principle where liability is apportioned based on degree of fault; thus making company liable if its supervisory staff ordered or knew about unsafe practices leading to injury. But since there was no evidence showing such knowledge or order from supervisors in this case hence it upheld employer’s non-liability verdict.

In the dissenting opinion for Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider the rights of individual states in regulating their own affairs. The dissenting justices believed that West Virginia had a legitimate interest in protecting its workers and ensuring they received fair compensation for their labor. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted interstate commerce, arguing that mining coal did not fall under this category as it was an activity conducted entirely within state borders. Furthermore, they contended that even if mining could be considered part of interstate commerce due to its end product being shipped out-of-state, this still didn't justify federal intervention because there were no conflicting laws between different states which needed resolution by a higher authority. In essence, these justices felt strongly about preserving state sovereignty and limiting federal power over local industries.