In the 1913 case Pennell, Administratrix v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Pennsylvania law that allowed for double damages in cases where an employer's negligence led to an employee's death violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff argued that this law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state corporations and thus infringed upon their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. However, after examining previous rulings on similar issues and considering arguments from both sides, the court ruled unanimously in favor of Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. They found no violation of constitutional rights as all corporations operating within Pennsylvania were subject to this same law regardless of their state origin or incorporation status.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennell v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a jury to determine whether or not an employer had taken every reasonable precaution in ensuring employee safety was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this responsibility should lie with experts who are more knowledgeable about workplace safety standards and practices than a layperson juror would be. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Pennsylvania’s Employer Liability Act, arguing that it did not intend for juries to have such broad discretion in determining what constitutes "every reasonable precaution". Instead, they contended that lawmakers intended for courts to use established industry standards as guidelines when making these determinations. By allowing juries rather than experts make these decisions, they feared it could lead to inconsistent rulings and potentially unfair outcomes.