In the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. McBride case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of McBride, who was injured while working for the railway company due to negligence on part of a fellow employee. The court held that under common law principles, an employer is liable for injuries caused by its employees' negligence during their employment term if such negligence results from a failure to provide safe tools or appliances necessary for work or maintain safety standards at workplace premises. This ruling established that employers could be held responsible even when they were not directly involved in causing harm but failed to ensure proper safety measures at workplaces leading indirectly to accidents and injuries among workers.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. McBride, the justice argued that there was a lack of evidence to support the claim that negligence on part of the railway company led to McBride's injury. The dissenting judge believed it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that any specific act or omission by an employee of the railway company directly caused harm to McBride. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding whether safety protocols were followed correctly during train operations at night time when visibility is low. He also questioned if proper instructions were given by court officials about how jurors should assess these discrepancies in testimony while making their decision about liability for damages due to personal injury under common law principles governing employer responsibility for actions of employees during work-related activities.