In the 1896 case of Wabash Western Railway v. Brow, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, overturning a lower court's decision that had awarded damages to an employee injured on duty. The plaintiff was a brakeman who got injured while coupling cars due to defective machinery provided by his employer. He sued for negligence and won at trial court level but lost on appeal as it was held that he assumed risk when accepting employment with knowledge about potential dangers involved in his job role. This ruling reinforced the doctrine of "assumption of risk," which states that employees knowingly accept certain risks associated with their jobs and thus cannot hold employers liable for injuries resulting from those known risks.

The dissenting opinion in the Wabash Western Railway v. Brow case argued that the state of Illinois had a right to regulate commerce within its borders, even if it involved interstate commerce. The justice believed that states should have control over their own affairs and not be subject to federal regulation unless absolutely necessary. He contended that this was especially true for issues like railroad rates which directly impacted local citizens and businesses. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications of such a ruling on other areas of state authority beyond just railroads or transportation industries. This view essentially advocated for more power at the state level as opposed to centralized federal control.