In the 1942 case of Owens, Executrix v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a train due to his own negligence. The plaintiff, Mr. Owens' widow and executrix of his estate, argued that her husband's death was caused by unsafe working conditions on the Union Pacific Railroad where he worked as a brakeman. She claimed that these conditions violated federal safety statutes known as Safety Appliance Acts which required railroads to provide safe equipment for their employees. The defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company contended that Mr. Owens' fall resulted from his own carelessness rather than any violation of federal law or failure on their part to maintain safe working conditions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating there was no evidence presented showing they had violated any provisions under Safety Appliance Acts and hence were not responsible for compensating Mrs.Owens.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Owens v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1942, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. The dissent contended that it was not appropriate for the court to apply federal common law when state law should govern instead. They believed this approach undermined states' rights and upset the balance between federal and state jurisdictions as set out by Congress. Furthermore, they disagreed with how negligence had been determined in this case, arguing that there were factual disputes which should have been resolved by a jury rather than decided upon by judges at an appellate level. This disagreement extended to whether or not Mrs.Owens could be considered contributorily negligent under Nebraska law given her actions leading up to her husband’s death on Union Pacific property.