In the case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Prater in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an injury to a railway worker. The plaintiff, Mr. Prater was injured while working for the Texas & Pacific Railway Company and sued his employer under federal law - specifically, the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). He won at trial court level and received damages for his injuries; however, this decision was reversed by an appellate court which held that FELA did not apply because Mr. Prater's work at the time of his accident did not directly or closely relate to interstate commerce – a requirement under FELA. The case then went before the Supreme Court where it had to decide whether Mr. Prater’s work sufficiently related to interstate commerce as required by FELA for him to claim compensation from his employer. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's interpretation of FELA and affirmed its judgment against Mr.Prater stating that he could not sue under federal law since he wasn't engaged in interstate transportation when he got hurt.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Prater, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable for injuries suffered by an employee who fell from a moving train was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company. They pointed out that while safety appliances were not in use at the time of accident, this did not necessarily mean they would have prevented such an incident from occurring as accidents can happen even with all safety measures in place. Furthermore, they contended that it is unreasonable to expect companies to anticipate and prevent every possible risk or injury scenario; instead liability should be determined based on whether a reasonable person could foresee harm resulting from their actions or lack thereof.