In the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Archibald, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. Archibald was injured while working for the railway company due to a defective machine which he claimed his employer knew about but failed to repair or replace it. He sued for damages based on negligence by his employer under federal law known as Employers' Liability Act (ELA). However, ELA did not apply in this case because at that time it only covered injuries resulting from interstate commerce activities and Mr. Archibald's work was purely within one state - Texas. The court held that since there were no allegations suggesting that Mr.Archibald’s duties involved interstate commerce, therefore ELA could not be invoked here making him ineligible for compensation under this act. This ruling clarified an important aspect of labor laws during those times i.e., workers engaged solely in intrastate commerce couldn't seek remedy under federal liability laws unless their work directly affected interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Archibald, it was argued that the railway company should not be held liable for damages caused by a fire started by one of its locomotives. The dissenting justices believed that there was no negligence on part of the railway company as they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an incident from occurring. They contended that accidents like these are inevitable in any industry involving machinery and thus, companies cannot be expected to bear responsibility unless there is clear evidence of negligence or misconduct. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how different states interpret laws related to liability for fires caused by locomotives which could lead to confusion and unfair treatment among railroad companies operating across state lines.