In the 1933 case of McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co., the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, dismissing a claim made by an employee who was injured on duty. The plaintiff, Mr. McKnett, had been working as a brakeman when he sustained injuries due to alleged negligence on part of his employer - St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company (the defendant). However, it was found that Mr.McKnett had failed to provide sufficient evidence proving negligence or violation of any safety statutes by his employer which could have directly led to his injury and thus held them liable for damages under Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Therefore, despite acknowledging that FELA does hold employers accountable for employees' injuries resulting from their negligence or violation of safety regulations; without substantial proof supporting these claims against the defendant in this particular instance,the court dismissed Mr.McKnett's suit.

In the dissenting opinion for McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider relevant state laws. He contended that under Oklahoma law, which should have been applied in this case, a person who voluntarily assumes risk is not entitled to damages unless they were unaware of the danger or their employer was negligent. In this case, he believed neither condition had been met as evidence showed that McKnett knew about the risks associated with his job but chose to continue working anyway without any negligence on part of his employer being proven. Therefore, according to Justice Stone, it would be inappropriate for him to receive compensation from his employer based on federal law when he wouldn't be eligible for such compensation under applicable state law.