In the 1893 case of Gardner v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Michigan Central Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Gardner, had purchased land from a railroad company that was later acquired by Michigan Central. He claimed that his property included a strip of land which he believed was only leased to the original railroad company and thus should have reverted back to him when it ceased being used for railway purposes. However, evidence showed that this strip of land had been sold outright to the original railroad company with no reversionary clause mentioned in any deeds or contracts related to its sale. Therefore, ownership did not revert back to Gardner when it stopped being used as a railway but instead remained with whoever owned it at that time - in this case, Michigan Central Railroad Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Gardner v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, it was argued that the plaintiff should not be barred from seeking damages due to contributory negligence because he had no reason to anticipate danger at the time of his injury. The justice believed that a person who is lawfully on a train has every right to expect safety and security, and cannot be expected to foresee all potential risks or hazards. Therefore, they felt it was unjustifiable for the court majority's decision which held that if an individual could have avoided harm through extra caution, then their claim can be dismissed due to contributory negligence. They contended this approach unfairly shifts responsibility onto passengers rather than holding railroad companies accountable for ensuring passenger safety.