In the 1894 case of Mattingly v. Northwestern Virginia Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, Mattingly, had purchased land from a man who had previously granted right-of-way to the railroad company for track construction. When Mattingly attempted to prevent further use and expansion of this right-of-way by erecting fences on his property, he was sued by the railroad company which sought an injunction against him. The court held that when Mattingly bought his property he did so with full knowledge of its encumbrance due to prior agreements made between previous owners and Northwestern Virginia Railroad Company; thus making him subject to those same conditions upon purchase. Therefore, it was determined that he could not interfere with or obstruct these rights without legal consequence.

The dissenting opinion in the Mattingly v. Northwestern Virginia Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important factors related to property rights and negligence. The dissent believed that Mr. Mattingly, who had been injured while working on a railroad track owned by Northwestern Virginia Railroad Company, should have been able to sue for damages due to negligence on part of his employer. They contended that the company did not provide adequate safety measures or warnings about potential dangers associated with work performed near active railway tracks which led directly to Mr. Mattingly’s injury and subsequent disability. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of liability laws as well as their application in this particular case arguing instead for a broader understanding of an employer’s duty towards its employees' safety at workplace.