In the 1895 case of Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company v. Skottowe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, overturning a decision by lower courts that had awarded damages to Mr. Skottowe for injuries he sustained while working as an employee for them. The court found that Mr. Skottowe was aware of the risks associated with his job when he accepted employment and therefore could not hold his employer liable for any harm resulting from those known hazards under common law principles governing employer-employee relationships at that time (the so-called "fellow servant rule"). This ruling reinforced employers' limited liability towards their employees in cases where workers were injured on duty due to inherent risks or negligence by fellow employees.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company v. Skottowe, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. He contended that it was not fair to hold a railway company liable for damages caused by an employee who acted outside of his scope of employment without explicit or implicit authorization from the company. The justice believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent as it could potentially make employers responsible for any wrongful acts committed by their employees, even if they were done without consent or knowledge. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "vicarious liability," arguing that such liability should only apply when an employee is acting within his duties and under direct orders from his employer.