In the case of Wall, Administratrix of Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company (1920), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over liability for a railway accident that resulted in death. The plaintiff, Mrs. Wall, acting as administratrix of her husband's estate, sued the railway company under Kentucky law which allowed recovery for wrongful death caused by negligence or safety violations. She claimed that her husband was killed due to negligent operation and maintenance by the railroad company while he was working on its premises as an independent contractor. The court ruled in favor of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company stating that it had no duty to provide safe conditions because Mr.Wall knew about potential dangers associated with his work and voluntarily assumed those risks when he agreed to perform work there as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

In the dissenting opinion for Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important factors of the case. He contended that there should be no difference in liability between an employer who negligently exposes a worker to danger and one who fails to provide safety equipment or precautions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of negligence as it applied to this case, arguing that if a company knows its employees are working under dangerous conditions without proper protection, then it is negligent regardless of whether those dangers are inherent in their work or not. Finally, he criticized the court for ignoring evidence suggesting that Wall knew about his unsafe working conditions but continued working anyway because he needed employment - according to Holmes this did not absolve his employers from responsibility for his death.