In the Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company case of 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant railroad company. The plaintiff, a passenger on one of their trains who was injured during an accident caused by negligence on part of the train's crew members, filed a lawsuit against them for damages. However, his ticket contained a clause that limited liability claims to $10k unless he declared and paid for excess value before boarding - which he did not do. The court held that such contracts are valid under federal law as long as they're reasonable and just; it found this particular contract to be so because it allowed passengers with valuable items or potential high damage claims (like Mr.Douglas) to protect themselves adequately by declaring these values beforehand and paying extra fees accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion for Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for injuries suffered by an employee was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of federal law. He contended that under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), employers are only responsible for damages if they were negligent in some way. In this case, he believed there was no evidence of negligence on part of the employer as it had taken reasonable precautions to ensure safety at work. The accident occurred due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control - a sudden gust of wind blowing down a tree onto power lines causing an explosion - which could not have been anticipated or prevented by any human foresight or care on part of the employer. Therefore, according to him, holding them accountable would be unjust and against principles established by FELA.