In the case of Chiles v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (1909), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, dismissing a claim made by Mr. Chiles for damages due to alleged negligence on part of the company leading to his injury. The court held that there was no evidence proving negligence by the railway company or its employees which could have caused Mr. Chiles' injuries while he was unloading timber from a car owned by him but transported over defendant's line under an agreement relieving it from liability except for damage resulting from gross negligence or willful misconduct not shown here. Therefore, as per this ruling, any person who voluntarily assumes risk cannot later sue for damages unless they can prove gross negligence or intentional harm.

In the dissenting opinion for Chiles v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider the rights of railway companies under state law. The dissent contended that Kentucky law clearly allowed railroads to charge different rates for in-state and out-of-state passengers, as long as those rates were reasonable. They believed this did not violate federal commerce laws because it didn't result in unjust discrimination or give undue preference to any particular person or locality. Furthermore, they asserted that states have a right to regulate their own internal affairs without interference from Congress unless there is a clear conflict with federal legislation - which they claimed was absent here. Thus, according to them, by ruling against the railroad company on these grounds, the court had overstepped its bounds and infringed upon states' rights.