In the case of Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 1956, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railroad worker who had been injured on the job and sought compensation under federal law. The plaintiff, Mr. Webb, was an employee of Illinois Central Railroad Company when he sustained injuries due to negligence by his employer. He filed a lawsuit seeking damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The defendant argued that since Webb's work did not involve interstate commerce at the time of his injury, FELA should not apply and instead state workers' compensation laws should govern this dispute. The lower courts agreed with Illinois Central but upon appeal to the Supreme Court it reversed these decisions stating that as long as an employee is engaged in interstate transportation or related works which are closely enough tied to such transportation even if they were not directly involved during their injury; they would still be covered by FELA rather than state workers’ compensation laws.

The dissenting opinion in the Webb v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. case argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissent believed that FELA should be interpreted broadly, as Congress intended, to protect workers from injuries sustained on the job due to employer negligence. They contended that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial showing negligence by Illinois Central Railroad Company which led directly to Webb’s injury, thus making them liable under FELA. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion about contributory negligence being a factor for consideration in this case since it is not recognized under FELA unless it results in willful or wanton misconduct by an employee which wasn't present here according to them.