In the case of Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Tranbarge, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tranbarge. The dispute arose when a shipment was damaged during transport by the railroad company and Tranbarge sought compensation for their losses. The railroad company argued that they were not liable due to an exemption clause in their contract with Tranbarge which stated that they would not be held responsible for any damages caused by "the perils of navigation." However, it was found that the damage occurred while loading onto a barge at port rather than during actual navigation on waterways. Therefore, this incident did not fall under "perils of navigation". As such, the court concluded that Chicago & Alton Railroad Company could not use this clause as defense against liability for damages incurred during transportation but outside active navigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Tranbarge, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and established principles of law. The justice contended that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages to goods in transit if it could prove that it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such damage. In this case, he believed that the railroad company had done everything within its power to protect the cargo from water damage during an unexpected flood while on route. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how liability was assigned between different modes of transportation under similar circumstances, arguing for more uniformity in these decisions.