In the 1907 case of Winslow v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee during work-related travel. The plaintiff, Mr. Winslow, was injured while traveling in a caboose provided by his employer, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. He argued that his injury resulted from negligence on part of the company as they failed to provide safe transportation conditions. The court ruled in favor of the defendant (the railroad company), stating that employers are not obligated to guarantee absolute safety for their employees during work-related travels under federal law at that time - known as "fellow servant rule". This doctrine stated that an employer is not responsible if one worker injures another due to negligence or carelessness unless it can be proven there were defects in machinery or equipment supplied by them which caused harm. This ruling highlighted how labor laws at this period did not adequately protect workers' rights and safety, leading eventually towards reforms later on.

In the dissenting opinion for Winslow v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railroad company liable for damages caused by a fire started unintentionally on its property was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds to impose liability in this case as there was no evidence of negligence or intentional wrongdoing by the railroad company. They contended that imposing such liability would set a dangerous precedent, potentially making property owners responsible for any harm resulting from unforeseen accidents occurring on their premises even when they have exercised due care and diligence. This could lead to an undue burden on businesses and individuals alike, stifling economic activity and personal freedom.