Watson v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company was a Supreme Court case decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Watson, and the defendant, the Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company. Watson had been employed by the railway company as a brakeman and was injured while on the job. He sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in providing a safe working environment. The Supreme Court held that the railway company was liable for Watson’s injuries. The Court found that the company had failed to provide a safe working environment and had not taken reasonable steps to protect its employees. The Court also held that the company was liable for Watson’s medical expenses and lost wages. The decision in Watson v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company established the principle of employer liability for employee injuries. The case established that employers must take reasonable steps to protect their employees from harm and that they are liable for any injuries that occur as a result of their negligence. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to establish the principle of employer liability for employee injuries.

In the dissenting opinion of Watson v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Company (1904), Justice Brewer argued that the majority’s decision was in error because it failed to consider the fact that a contract between two parties is not necessarily invalidated by one party's failure to perform its obligations under said contract if such performance has been waived or excused by mutual agreement. He further noted that while there may be some circumstances where a court can find an implied waiver of contractual duties due to certain facts and circumstances, this case did not present any such evidence as both parties had agreed on multiple occasions over several years for defendant railway company to pay plaintiff Watson $1 per day for his services without requiring him to provide proof of those services each month; thus indicating an express waiver from plaintiff which should have precluded him from recovering damages in this instance.