The Supreme Court case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Wangelin was a dispute between the railroad company and a passenger who was injured while riding on one of their trains. The passenger, Wangelin, had purchased a ticket from the railroad company and was injured when the train derailed. Wangelin sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in maintaining the train and that the accident was their fault. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, finding that the company had not been negligent in maintaining the train and that the accident was not their fault. The Court held that the railroad company had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its passengers and that the accident was an unavoidable event. The Court also noted that the ticket purchased by Wangelin did not guarantee a safe journey and that the company was not liable for any damages caused by the accident. The Supreme Court's decision in Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Wangelin established that a railroad company is not liable for damages caused by an unavoidable accident, even if the company had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its passengers. The Court's ruling also established that a ticket purchased from a railroad company does not guarantee a safe journey and that the company is not liable for any damages caused by an accident.

In the dissenting opinion of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Wangelin, Justice Harlan argued that the majority’s decision was a misinterpretation of existing law. He believed that it should be up to Congress to decide whether or not railroads had an obligation to pay for damages caused by their negligence, rather than leaving it up to state courts. He further stated that if Congress did intend for railroads to be liable in such cases, then they would have passed legislation making this clear. In his view, allowing states to impose liability on railroad companies could lead them into financial ruin due to conflicting laws from different states and thus interfere with interstate commerce which is prohibited under the Constitution. Therefore he concluded that since no federal statute existed at the time requiring railroads pay compensation for damages resulting from their negligence, then there was no legal basis upon which a court could hold them responsible in this case and reversed the lower court’s ruling accordingly