In the 1912 case of Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Earnest, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. Earnest was injured while working for the railway company and sought compensation under a state law that held employers liable for injuries sustained by employees due to negligence or fault on part of other employees. However, since his employment involved interstate commerce, it fell under federal jurisdiction as per Interstate Commerce Act and Employers' Liability Act which did not hold employers responsible for such incidents unless they were directly at fault or negligent themselves. The court upheld this principle stating that state laws could not interfere with federal regulations concerning interstate commerce matters; hence ruling against Mr.Earnest's claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Earnest, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable for injuries suffered by an employee who was not provided with a safe place to work contradicted previous court rulings. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds to impose such liability on employers under federal law and felt that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent. They contended that if every employer could be held responsible for any harm or injury occurring in their workplace regardless of fault, it would lead to excessive litigation and potentially cripple businesses financially. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of employees were treated under this ruling - while some workers might benefit from increased protections, others could find themselves unfairly disadvantaged.