In the case of Thomson v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 1956, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of another employee. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomson, was injured while working for the defendant and sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which allows railroad workers to sue their employers for injury damages caused by co-worker negligence. However, in this particular case, it was found that Mr. Thomson had been negligent himself as well and his own carelessness contributed significantly to his accident. The court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Co., stating that FELA did not completely eliminate common law rules regarding contributory negligence - where if a person's own neglect contributes partly or wholly towards their injury then they cannot claim compensation from others who may also have been at fault. This decision established important precedent concerning how liability is determined under FELA when both employer and employee are found negligent; specifically affirming that contributory negligence can still limit or bar recovery even under federal statutes designed primarily to protect employees against employer misconduct.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Thomson v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring railway companies to provide equal but separate accommodations for white and black passengers was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, and also contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions on similar issues. They contended that segregation inherently implies inequality because it is based on an assumption of racial inferiority. Furthermore, they pointed out practical difficulties with enforcing such laws fairly and consistently across different states and jurisdictions. Finally, they warned against setting a dangerous precedent by allowing state governments to enforce discriminatory practices through legislation.