In the case of Hairston v. Danville and Western Railway Company, 1907, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, Hairston, was a passenger on one of their trains when he was injured due to an accident caused by negligence on part of the train's crew. He sued for damages but his claim was denied because he had not paid for his ticket at the time of injury; instead it had been purchased after-the-fact by another person as per an agreement with him. The court held that since Hairston did not have a contractual relationship with the railway company at that point (as no fare had been paid), he could only be considered as a trespasser or licensee to whom they owed only minimal duty-of-care - which did not include protection from negligent acts committed by its employees.

In the dissenting opinion for Hairston v. Danville and Western Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Virginia state law limiting damages in personal injury cases involving railroads was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as it discriminated against non-residents of Virginia by imposing an unjust limitation on their ability to recover damages from railroad companies operating within the state. They contended that such discrimination between residents and non-residents had no rational basis or legitimate purpose, thus making it unconstitutional under equal protection principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that states have broad powers to regulate corporations within their borders without violating constitutional rights of individuals.