In the case of Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, 1922, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, Mr. Lee, was an employee who had been injured while working for the company and sought compensation under a federal statute known as Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, his claim was denied by lower courts on grounds that he had assumed risk associated with his job when he accepted employment and thus could not seek damages from his employer for injuries sustained during work hours. On appeal to Supreme Court, it upheld this decision stating that FELA did not abolish assumption of risk doctrine completely but only modified it to some extent where negligence is involved on part of employer or co-workers which wasn't proven in this case.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation for a worker injured while not technically on duty was unjust and overly narrow. The dissent emphasized that the employee, though not actively working at the time of his injury, was still within his employer's premises and under their control when he got hurt. Therefore, they believed it should be considered as occurring "in the course of employment". They also pointed out that if an employee is injured due to unsafe conditions maintained by an employer - even during off-duty hours - then it is only fair for them to receive compensation from said employer who failed in providing a safe environment. This interpretation would better align with principles of justice and fairness towards workers' rights.