In the case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Skaggs in 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an individual who was not employed by them but was working on their premises under another employer. The plaintiff, Mr. Skaggs, had been injured while loading logs onto one of the defendant's cars and sought compensation from both his direct employer and the railroad company. The court ruled that although he wasn't directly employed by Illinois Central Railroad Company, they were still responsible for maintaining safe conditions on their property - including ensuring that equipment provided to independent contractors or other non-employees is safe to use. Therefore, it concluded that if negligence on part of Illinois Central contributed to unsafe conditions leading to injury then they can indeed be held liable.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Skaggs argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially disrupt established business practices. The dissenting justices believed that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages to goods transported by another carrier, even if they had issued a through bill of lading. They contended that liability should only extend as far as their own line runs unless there is explicit agreement otherwise. This view was based on the principle of limited liability which has been recognized in many past cases involving carriers and shippers. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the potential impact on commerce if railroads were forced to assume responsibility beyond their control or knowledge, arguing it would create an undue burden on these companies.