In the 1911 case of Stalker v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, Mr. Stalker, was an employee who had been injured while working for the company and sought compensation under a federal law known as Employers' Liability Act (1908). However, his claim was denied by both lower courts on grounds that he did not provide sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of his employer leading to his injury. Upon reaching Supreme Court level, it upheld these rulings stating that there were no errors committed during trial proceedings at lower court levels and affirmed their judgment against Mr.Stalker's claims.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stalker v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply principles of negligence law. The dissent took issue with the majority's conclusion that the railroad company was not liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a moving train, arguing instead that there were sufficient grounds to believe negligence on part of the company could have contributed to his accident. They contended that it was unreasonable for a jury not to be allowed to decide whether or not safety appliances provided by defendant were adequate and safe, as well as if plaintiff had been negligent himself in using them. Furthermore, they disagreed with how contributory negligence had been applied in this case; even if plaintiff might have acted imprudently at some point during his work shift, it did not necessarily mean he should bear all responsibility for what happened later on when he got injured while performing his duties under dangerous conditions created by employer’s failure to provide proper equipment.