In the case of New York Central Railroad Company v. Marcone, Administrator (1929), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when an employee was killed while working on a bridge owned by another company but used by both companies under a joint agreement. The deceased's estate sued for damages under Pennsylvania’s wrongful death statute and won at trial court level, which held that New York Central was liable as it had control over its own operations and employees even though they were operating on property not owned by them. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that liability should be determined based on who has control over the specific location where injury occurred rather than who controls overall operations or employment relationships. Since the accident happened on a bridge controlled by another company, New York Central could not be held responsible for ensuring safety conditions there despite having operational control over its workers.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Central Railroad Company v. Marcone, it was argued that the court majority misinterpreted and improperly applied federal law in a way that unjustly favored corporations over individual workers. The dissenting justices believed that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) should be interpreted to provide broad protections for railroad workers injured on the job, rather than narrowly focusing on whether or not negligence could be proven in each specific case. They contended that this interpretation would better align with Congress's intent when passing FELA - to shift some of the inherent risks of railway work from employees to their employers. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation was determined by majority ruling; arguing instead for a more lenient standard where any employer contribution to injury risk would suffice as grounds for liability under FELA.