In the 1913 case McDonald v. Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company. The plaintiff, McDonald had sued for damages after he was injured while working as a switchman due to alleged negligence on part of his employer - Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company. However, it was found that McDonald himself had been negligent which contributed to his injury. According to the doctrine of contributory negligence applicable at that time (which has since largely been replaced by comparative fault), if an employee's own carelessness played any role in their injury, they were barred from recovering damages from their employer even if the latter was also negligent. Therefore, despite finding evidence suggesting some degree of negligence on part of both parties involved - i.e., unsafe work conditions provided by the company as well as careless behavior exhibited by McDonald leading up-to his accident - no compensation could be awarded to him under existing law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McDonald v. Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company disagreed with the majority's interpretation of liability under federal law for injuries sustained by railway employees. The dissent argued that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) was intended to provide broad protection for workers, not limit their rights as interpreted by the majority. They contended that FELA should be read to impose strict liability on employers, meaning they would be responsible for employee injuries regardless of negligence or fault. This view held that any injury occurring during employment should automatically trigger employer responsibility, thus ensuring greater safety measures are taken by companies to prevent such incidents from happening in future. Furthermore, it was suggested that this approach better aligned with Congress’s intent when passing FELA - promoting worker safety rather than protecting corporate interests.