In the case of Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company v. Schubert in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving personal injury sustained during interstate travel. The plaintiff, Mr. Schubert was injured while traveling from New York to Washington D.C., when his train collided with another due to negligence by employees of the railroad company. He sued for damages under federal law but was denied relief by lower courts which held that his claim should have been brought under state law instead. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that because Mr. Schubert's journey involved crossing state lines it fell within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and therefore he could sue under federal law as well as state law if he chose to do so. This landmark decision established an important precedent regarding jurisdiction over personal injury claims arising out of interstate travel - such cases can be heard in federal court even if they also involve issues governed by state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company v. Schubert, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to award damages to Schubert based on negligence by the railroad company. He argued that there was insufficient evidence of negligence presented in court. According to him, it was not enough for a plaintiff merely to show that an accident occurred while they were using a defendant’s services; they must also provide proof of negligent behavior leading directly to their injury. In this case, he believed such proof had not been provided against the railroad company and thus dissented from his colleagues' ruling in favor of Schubert.