In the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Stewart, 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas and Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when a train conductor named Stewart was injured while coupling cars on a railway siding owned by another company but used by his employer under an agreement. He sued for damages claiming that his employer had failed to provide him with reasonably safe tools and appliances necessary for performing his duties as required by Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, the court held that FELA did not apply because at the time of injury he was working on tracks not owned or controlled by his employing carrier thus it wasn't part of its line or operated over it within meaning of act's terms "railroad" and "line." Therefore, since FELA didn’t cover this situation, Stewart’s claim against Texas & Pacific Railway Co., based solely upon alleged violations thereof was dismissed.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Stewart, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable for injuries sustained by Mr. Stewart was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company as required under federal law governing employers' liability cases at that time. They contended that while unfortunate, accidents can occur in workplaces without necessarily being due to an employer's negligence or failure to provide a safe working environment. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation had been established in this case; asserting instead that Mr.Stewart’s injury could have resulted from his own actions or other factors not related directly to any alleged negligence by his employer.