In the case of Norfolk and Western Railroad Company v. Pendleton, 1894, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of another employee. The plaintiff, Pendleton, was injured while working as a brakeman when he fell from his train because it had been negligently moved by another worker. He sued the railroad company for damages under Virginia's "fellow servant" law which stated that employers were not responsible for accidents caused by fellow employees unless they were acting in a supervisory role or if there was negligence in hiring them. The court ruled against Pendleton stating that although railroads are engaged in hazardous work and have responsibility towards their workers' safety; this did not extend to being accountable for every accident occurring during operations irrespective of fault. It upheld that under common law principles and Virginia’s statute at issue here, an employer is generally not liable to one employee injured through the negligent acts of another employee unless such other person is entrusted with some superintendence or has control over others’ employment.

In the dissenting opinion for Norfolk and Western Railroad Company v. Pendleton, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law regarding negligence and liability. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the railroad company may have been negligent in their duty to provide a safe working environment, which resulted in an employee's injury. They contended that this issue should be decided by a jury rather than dismissed outright by a judge based on legal technicalities. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view about contributory negligence - if an injured party contributed even slightly to their own harm through carelessness or lack of caution, they could not recover damages from another party who might also be at fault. The dissenters felt this doctrine unfairly protected corporations over individuals' rights and safety.