In the 1931 case of Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Co. v. Borum, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company after it was sued by a worker who had been injured on duty due to alleged negligence by his superiors. The plaintiff argued that he should be compensated for his injuries under federal laws protecting railway workers' safety (the Federal Employers' Liability Act). However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of his employers and thus dismissed his claim for compensation. The ruling emphasized that while federal law does provide protection and rights to employees working in hazardous conditions such as railways, these protections are not absolute or automatic; they require proof of employer's fault or neglect contributing directly towards any injury sustained during work hours.

In the dissenting opinion for Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Co. v. Borum, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a railroad company to avoid liability for an employee's injury was inconsistent with federal law and precedent regarding employer responsibility in workplace accidents under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He contended that FELA intended to hold employers accountable for maintaining safe working conditions and should be interpreted broadly in favor of injured workers rather than narrowly as done by the majority ruling which absolved employers from any negligence if employees had some knowledge about potential dangers at work but still chose to continue their duties without protest or complaint.