In the case of E.H. Emery & Company v. American Refrigerator Transit Company, 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for refrigeration services during transit could absolve a carrier from liability for damages to goods due to negligence in maintaining proper temperature. The plaintiff, E.H Emery & Co., had contracted with American Refrigerator Transit Co., who provided refrigerator cars and ice service but did not transport the goods themselves. During transit, some of their eggs were damaged due to improper refrigeration by ARTC's employees' negligence. The court ruled that while carriers can limit their liability through contracts under certain conditions (such as providing separate compensation), they cannot do so when it comes to damage caused by their own or their agents' negligence unless expressly stipulated in the contract and agreed upon by both parties involved. In this case, no such agreement existed; therefore ARTC was held liable for damages resulting from its employee’s negligent acts.

In the dissenting opinion for E.H. Emery & Company v. American Refrigerator Transit Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the defendant liable for damages caused by a fire in their refrigerator car was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the defendant and thus they should not be held responsible for losses incurred by plaintiff due to this incident. They pointed out that fires could occur even without any negligence involved and therefore, liability cannot be automatically assumed just because a fire occurred in one of their cars while transporting goods owned by another party (plaintiff). Furthermore, they disagreed with imposing an absolute duty upon carriers like defendants who are providing specialized services such as refrigerated transport which inherently carry certain risks beyond normal carriage duties.