In the case of Wood v. Vandalia Railroad Company, 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a bridge while working on it. The plaintiff, Mr. Wood, argued that his employer had failed to provide him with safe working conditions and adequate safety equipment which led to his fall and subsequent injury. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendant - Vandalia Railroad Company - stating that there was no evidence indicating negligence on their part as they had provided all necessary safety measures required under law at that time including guardrails along bridges where work was being performed. Furthermore, it found Mr.Wood's own carelessness contributed significantly to his accident since he chose not to use available safeguards despite knowing about them beforehand.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wood v. Vandalia Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to maintain fences along their tracks was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this requirement imposed undue burden on railroad companies and could potentially disrupt trade between states, as it would require them to make significant changes to their infrastructure and operations. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how such laws were applied across different states, which they believed further complicated matters for railroad companies operating across state lines. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that this was primarily a matter of public safety, arguing instead that there were other less intrusive ways of achieving this goal without infricating upon constitutional rights.