This US Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Grahams and the Boston, Hartford & Erie Railroad Company and others. The Grahams had purchased a parcel of land in Pennsylvania from the railroad company, and the deed included a clause that the railroad company would not be liable for any damages caused by the railroad's operations. The Grahams later sued the railroad company for damages caused by the railroad's operations, and the railroad company argued that the clause in the deed meant that they were not liable for the damages. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grahams, finding that the clause in the deed did not absolve the railroad company from liability for damages caused by its operations. The Court held that the clause was not intended to be a waiver of liability, but rather a limitation on the amount of damages that the railroad company could be held liable for. The Court also held that the clause was not a contract of indemnity, and that the railroad company was still liable for the damages caused by its operations.

In the case of Graham & Another v. Boston, Hartford & Erie Railroad Company & Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures on its premises. The majority opinion found that the railroad company did not owe any duty of care and thus could not be held liable for damages resulting from their negligence. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it was unjust to allow a corporation like a railway company to escape liability when they had failed in their duty of providing reasonable safety precautions on their property. He further noted that such an exemption would encourage corporations to act recklessly with impunity since they would face no consequences if something went wrong due to inadequate safety measures or other negligent behavior. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing companies like railroads off the hook for damages caused by their own negligence ran counter both justice and public policy considerations which should have been taken into account before reaching such a decision.