In the 1906 case of Arthur v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, Mr. Arthur, was a cattle rancher who had contracted with the railway to transport his livestock from New Mexico to Louisiana for sale at market. However, due to delays caused by negligence on part of the railroad company's employees during transit which led to loss in weight and value of cattle upon arrival at their destination, he sued for damages under federal law that required railroads engaged in interstate commerce to provide reasonable service without undue delay or discrimination between shippers. The court held that while there was evidence supporting Arthur’s claim about negligent handling causing damage; however it did not constitute a violation under federal law as alleged because there was no proof showing unreasonable service or discriminatory treatment compared with other shippers by Texas & Pacific Railway Co., thus affirming lower courts' decisions dismissing his suit.

In the dissenting opinion for Arthur v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the Safety Appliance Act. The dissenting justices believed that Congress intended to impose absolute liability on railroads for any injuries caused by defective equipment, regardless of whether or not negligence could be proven. They contended that this strict liability standard was necessary to ensure railroad companies took every possible precaution to maintain their equipment properly and protect workers' safety. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that a previous ruling (Schlemmer v. Buffalo) established precedent for requiring proof of negligence in such cases; instead, they interpreted Schlemmer as affirming Congress's power to enact laws imposing absolute liability on employers for workplace accidents.