In the 1914 case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Murph, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, reversing a lower court's decision that had awarded damages to Murph for injuries sustained while working as an employee for the railway company. The main issue was whether or not federal law applied since his injury occurred while he was engaged in interstate commerce work on a train traveling from Louisiana to Texas. The Supreme Court held that because Murph's duties were directly related to interstate commerce at the time of his accident, federal law did apply and under it, employers are not liable for employees' injuries caused by fellow workers' negligence unless they have been negligent themselves - which wasn't proven here against Texas & Pacific Railway Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Murph, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a damages award against the railway company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no negligence on part of the railway company and therefore, they should not be held liable for Mr. Murph's injuries. They contended that Mr. Murph himself had acted negligently by choosing to ride in an unsafe manner despite knowing about potential risks involved with his actions, which ultimately led to his injury during a train derailment incident caused by another passenger pulling emergency brakes without any immediate danger present at all. The dissenters also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain evidence presented during trial proceedings; particularly testimonies from other passengers who claimed they felt safe before derailment occurred because this did not necessarily prove whether or not safety measures were adequate enough according them under law standards applicable then. Furthermore, these justices expressed concerns over implications their colleagues' ruling might have on future cases involving similar circumstances where plaintiffs could potentially exploit legal system unfairly just so as long as they manage convincing juries into believing defendants are solely responsible even if facts suggest otherwise too.