In the case of O'Neill v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 1954, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a moving train due to his own negligence. The plaintiff, Mr. O’Neill, argued that under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), employers are responsible for providing safe working conditions and should therefore bear some responsibility for his accident. The defendant countered that they were not at fault as Mr. O’Neill had disregarded safety rules and procedures which led to his injury. The court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that FELA does not make railroads insurers against all accidents but only those caused in whole or part by their negligence or violation of statutory duty; it does not impose liability on them when employees disregard established safety rules and regulations causing harm unto themselves.

The dissenting opinion in the case of O'Neill v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 1954, argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were insufficient grounds to establish negligence on part of the employer and hence, they should not be held responsible for compensating damages. They contended that it is unjustifiable to impose liability without clear evidence of fault or neglect from the employer’s side as this could potentially lead businesses into financial jeopardy due to excessive litigation costs and unwarranted compensation payouts. Furthermore, they stressed upon maintaining a balanced approach towards protecting workers' rights while also considering employers’ interests which are crucial for economic stability and growth.