In the case of Baer Brothers Mercantile Company v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, 1913, the plaintiff sued for damages due to a delay in shipment by the defendant railroad company. The merchandise was shipped under a uniform bill of lading that limited liability unless damage resulted from negligence on part of the carrier. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence showing negligence by the carrier and hence it could not be held liable for any consequential damages resulting from delayed delivery. It further stated that even if there were such evidence, under common law principles and provisions in Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), carriers cannot be made responsible for losses beyond their control or those which they couldn't have foreseen at time of contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Baer Brothers Mercantile Company v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the railroad company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been an error made by not considering whether or not there were any other reasonable and practical routes available for transportation besides those controlled by the defendant (the railroad company). They contended that if such alternative routes existed, then it would be unjustifiable to allow one entity to monopolize all transport services and charge excessive rates without providing adequate service. This monopoly could potentially violate antitrust laws designed to promote competition and prevent abuses of market power. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'reasonable' rates as being solely based on cost considerations rather than also taking into account competitive factors.