The Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al. v. Rychlik case in 1956 revolved around the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which allows railroad workers to sue their employers for injuries sustained on the job due to negligence of the employer or co-workers. The plaintiff, a brakeman named Rychlik, was injured while attempting to couple two cars and sued his employer, Pennsylvania Railroad Company, alleging that they had failed to provide him with safe working conditions as required by FELA. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rychlik stating that under FELA an employee can recover damages if he/she is able prove any degree of negligence on part of the employer contributing towards injury even if it's slight and irrespective of whether there might have been contributory negligence from employee’s side too. This ruling reinforced worker protections under FELA by confirming that railroads could be held liable for workplace injuries resulting from any level of proven negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al. v. Rychlik, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a jury verdict in favor of an injured railroad worker was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on similar cases involving the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He contended that FELA does not give workers absolute rights to damages whenever they are injured on the job, but rather requires them to prove negligence by their employer. In this case, he believed there was insufficient evidence of such negligence and thus disagreed with allowing a jury verdict based largely on sympathy for the plaintiff rather than concrete proof of fault by his employers. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where juries could award damages without clear evidence of liability under FELA.