In the case of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Snow, 1913, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Union Pacific Railroad Company against a claim made by Mr. Snow for damages due to an accident that occurred while he was working on one of their trains as a brakeman. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railroad company which could have caused or contributed to the accident and injury suffered by Mr. Snow. The decision hinged largely upon whether or not it could be proven that a defective brake lever had been responsible for causing his injuries; however, no such proof was provided during trial proceedings and thus liability couldn't be established beyond reasonable doubt against Union Pacific Railroad Company. This ruling reinforced legal principles regarding employer's responsibility towards ensuring safety at workplace and burden of proof required in establishing negligence leading to personal injury claims under Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). It also highlighted importance given by courts towards concrete evidentiary support when deciding cases involving allegations about equipment malfunctioning contributing towards accidents at work places.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Snow, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who was not directly involved in interstate commerce at the time of his accident. He argued that such a broad interpretation of federal law would unfairly burden railroads and potentially lead to excessive litigation. Furthermore, he contended that it was not Congress' intent to regulate every aspect of railroad operations when they passed legislation governing worker safety in interstate commerce. Instead, he believed this authority should remain primarily within state jurisdiction unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise from Congress.