In the Great Western Telegraph Company v. Burnham case of 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Burnham, upholding a decision made by the Illinois Supreme Court. The dispute arose when telegraph messages sent by Burnham to his wife were not delivered promptly or accurately due to negligence on part of the telegraph company's employees. As a result, Mrs. Burnham was unable to reach her husband before he died and she sued for damages based on mental anguish caused by this failure. The court held that although there was no contractual obligation between Mrs.Burnham and the telegraph company (the contract being with Mr.Burnham), it did not absolve them from their duty as public service providers to deliver messages correctly and promptly; hence they could be liable for resulting emotional distress even if physical harm had not occurred. This ruling set an important precedent in recognizing emotional distress as grounds for damage claims against companies providing services where timeliness and accuracy are crucial.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Western Telegraph Company v. Burnham, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a telegraph company liable for damages due to errors in transmission or delivery of an unrepeated message was unjust. The dissent emphasized that customers who choose not to pay extra for repeated messages are aware of and accept the risk of error inherent in single transmissions. It also pointed out that telegraph companies do not guarantee accuracy unless they are paid additional fees for repeating messages, which is a widely known policy among users of this service. Thus, holding these companies accountable would be unfair as it disregards their established terms and conditions while favoring those who opt not to secure their transactions by paying small additional charges.