In the 1904 case of Bradford v. Southern Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Railway Company. The plaintiff, Mr. Bradford, had sued for damages after his cotton was destroyed by fire while stored in a warehouse owned by the railway company. He claimed that as per their contract, the railway company was responsible for safeguarding his goods and thus liable for any damage or loss incurred during storage period. However, upon examination of evidence presented before it including contracts and bills of lading (which are documents issued by a carrier to acknowledge receipt of cargo), the court found no such obligation on part of Southern Railway Company to protect against risks like fire unless explicitly stated so in their agreement with customers which wasn't present here. Therefore, it held that without explicit contractual obligations specifying otherwise; common carriers like railways aren't liable for losses caused due to unforeseen events beyond their control such as fires.

In the dissenting opinion for Bradford v. Southern Railway Company, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of liability under Alabama law. The dissent contended that there was no legal precedent or statutory provision to support the idea that a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an individual who voluntarily placed themselves in danger on train tracks without any action or negligence from the railway company contributing to their injury. It further asserted that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening up companies to limitless liability claims even when they have not acted negligently and where individuals have knowingly put themselves at risk. This view emphasized personal responsibility over corporate accountability in instances of self-inflicted harm.