In the case of McAllister v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, 1916, 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's husband had been killed in a train accident and she sought damages from his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The defendant argued that they were not responsible as they had provided safe equipment and working conditions. However, it was found that there were discrepancies in testimonies regarding safety measures taken by the company at the time of accident. Ultimately, it was ruled that these conflicting accounts should have been presented to a jury rather than being decided upon solely by judges during trial proceedings. Therefore, this case set precedent for future FELA cases where disputes over facts would need to be resolved through jury trials instead of judge-only decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for McAllister v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissenting justices believed that FELA should be interpreted to allow employees to sue employers for injuries sustained on-the-job regardless of whether negligence could be proven. They contended that this broad interpretation would better align with Congress's intent when passing FELA - to protect railway workers from dangerous working conditions and provide them a means of compensation for work-related injuries. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's view that state laws were sufficient protection, arguing instead they often fell short in providing adequate remedies or compensation for injured workers.