In the case of Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Company et al., 1919, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee while on duty. The plaintiff, Mr. Lee, was injured when he fell from a moving train due to what he claimed were unsafe working conditions provided by his employer - Central of Georgia Railway Company. He argued that the company had violated its statutory duty under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) to provide safe work environments for its employees. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Lee and stated that it is indeed within the purview of FELA to hold employers accountable for providing hazardous working conditions leading to injury or death among their workers, even if they are not directly responsible for causing such accidents or incidents themselves. This decision set a precedent in labor law as it reinforced employers' responsibility towards ensuring safety at workplaces and established that they can be held legally accountable under federal law if found negligent in this regard.

In the dissenting opinion for Lee v. Central of Georgia Railway Company, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important factors in determining liability. He contended that the railway company should not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who knowingly took on a risky task without proper safety precautions or equipment provided by his employer. According to Holmes, this case was about personal responsibility rather than corporate negligence; he believed it was unreasonable to hold employers accountable for risks willingly assumed by their employees, especially when those risks were inherent in the job itself. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of federal law as overly broad and potentially harmful to businesses.