In the case of St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Company v. Seale in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an injured railway worker and his employer. The plaintiff, Mr. Seale was employed by the defendant company as a section hand when he suffered injuries due to alleged negligence on part of his employer's failure to provide safe working conditions and equipment for its employees. He sought compensation from the railroad company under federal law - specifically under Employers' Liability Act (1908). However, this act had been declared unconstitutional prior to this case but later re-enacted with minor changes after being revised by Congress in 1910. The main issue before court was whether or not Mr.Seale could claim damages under this new version of Employers' Liability Act even though it came into effect after his accident occurred but before he filed suit against his employers. The Supreme Court held that since no rights were vested nor liabilities incurred until legal proceedings began; hence Mr.Seale could indeed sue under provisions of newly enacted legislation despite it coming into force post-incident. This ruling established important precedent regarding application timing for laws relating to personal injury claims within workplace context.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Company v. Seale, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that awarded damages to Seale for injuries sustained while working on a railway line owned by his employer. He argued that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove negligence on part of the company and thus it should not be held liable for Seale's injuries. Furthermore, he contended that even if negligence could be proven, under common law principles an employer is not responsible for accidents caused by fellow employees unless they are acting in a supervisory capacity or their actions can be directly attributed back to the employer itself - conditions which were not met in this case according to him.