In the Southern Railway Company v. Puckett case of 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Railway Company. The plaintiff, Mr. Puckett, was a railway employee who suffered injuries while on duty and sought compensation from his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, he had signed an agreement with his employer that any claims for damages would be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. The court held that such agreements were enforceable and did not violate FELA's provisions because they provided an alternative means to resolve disputes without denying employees their rights under the act. Therefore, Mr.Puckett could not sue his employer directly for damages but needed to abide by the terms of his employment contract and seek resolution through arbitration.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Railway Company v. Puckett, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to consider key aspects of contract law and instead relied on a narrow interpretation of negligence. The dissenting justices believed that the railway company had not fulfilled its contractual obligations to ensure passenger safety, regardless of whether or not they could have foreseen specific incidents such as this one. They maintained that by selling a ticket, the railway entered into an implied contract with Mr. Puckett to transport him safely from one place to another - an obligation which they did not meet when he was injured during his journey due to their failure in providing safe conditions for travel. Therefore, according to these justices, liability should be determined based on breach of contract rather than solely focusing on negligence standards.