In Dunbar v. City of New York, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to enforce a local ordinance that required street railway companies to provide separate compartments for smokers and non-smokers. The plaintiff, Mr. Dunbar, argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by creating an unreasonable classification between smokers and non-smokers without any substantial relation to public health or comfort. However, the court disagreed with him stating that it is within the power of a municipality under police powers granted by state constitution to regulate businesses like railways for promoting public welfare including health and comfort. Therefore, such regulations do not violate equal protection clause as they are based on reasonable classifications aimed at achieving legitimate government objectives.

In the dissenting opinion for Dunbar v. City of New York, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the city was not liable for damages caused by a mob during a riot because it did not have control over the actions of the mob. He contended that while governments are responsible for maintaining order and protecting citizens from harm, they cannot be held accountable when unforeseen circumstances or uncontrollable events lead to damage or injury. In this case, he believed that although law enforcement officials may have failed in their duty to prevent violence during the riot, this failure does not automatically make them financially responsible for all resulting damages. The city's liability should only extend to situations where its direct action or negligence led directly to harm.