In the 1933 case of Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an employee's right to compensation for injuries sustained during work-related travel. The plaintiff, Mr. Stringfellow, was injured while traveling in a vehicle provided by his employer, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company (ACL). He sought damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which provides compensation for railroad workers who are injured on the job due to their employer's negligence. The central issue before the court was whether FELA applied when an injury occurred during transportation that is incidental to employment but not directly related to work duties or tasks at hand. ACL argued that since Mr.Stringfellow wasn't performing any specific task related directly to his job when he got injured; hence they shouldn't be held liable. However, after considering all arguments and evidence presented, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Stringfellow stating that as long as there is some duty or obligation imposed by employment being performed at time of injury - even if it’s merely being transported from one place of work to another - then FELA applies and employers can be held responsible.

In the dissenting opinion for Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He argued that FELA was designed to provide broad protection for railroad workers and should be interpreted liberally in their favor. In his view, a worker who is injured while performing duties related to interstate commerce should be covered by FELA, regardless of whether those duties are performed within or outside of state boundaries. Furthermore, he contended that Congress intended for federal courts to have jurisdiction over all cases arising under FELA, not just those involving injuries sustained in interstate commerce as determined by geographical location at time of injury. Therefore, he believed that Mr.Stringfellow’s case fell squarely within this scope and thus dissented from the majority ruling which held otherwise.