In the 1910 case of Schlemmer, now Craig, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburg Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff was a former employee who had been injured while working for the company and sought compensation for his injuries. He argued that he was entitled to damages under federal law because his injury occurred while he was engaged in interstate commerce. However, the court held that at the time of his accident, Mr. Schlemmer (now known as Mr.Craig) wasn't involved in interstate commerce but rather intrastate activities - repairing cars within New York state only - which didn't fall under federal jurisdiction according to Interstate Commerce Act's provisions on employees' protection from employers' negligence or fault causing harm during work related to interstate trade or transportation.

In the dissenting opinion for Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburg Railway Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was not intended to change common law rules regarding contributory negligence or assumption of risk but rather aimed at ensuring employers were held accountable for injuries caused by their negligence. Holmes believed that if an employee knowingly and willingly took on a risky job, they assumed responsibility for potential risks associated with it. Therefore, he contended that Schlemmer should not be able to recover damages from his employer as he had voluntarily accepted a dangerous task which ultimately led to his injury. This view differed significantly from the majority who ruled in favor of Schlemmer based on their interpretation of FELA as eliminating defenses related to assumption of risk.