In the 1893 case of McKittrick v. Arkansas Central Railway Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, McKittrick, had sued for damages after a train accident resulted in personal injury and loss of his horse and wagon. However, he failed to provide sufficient evidence proving negligence on part of the railway company's employees which led to his injuries or losses. The court held that it was not enough for him to merely show that an accident occurred; he needed to prove specific acts or omissions by the defendant’s servants leading up to it as well. Furthermore, even if there were some doubts about whether all precautions were taken by those operating the train at fault - such uncertainties should be resolved in favor of defendants unless clear proof is provided otherwise.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McKittrick v. Arkansas Central Railway Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider certain key aspects of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that when a person enters into a contract, they are bound by its terms and conditions unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, McKittrick had entered into a contract with the railway company for transportation services and should therefore be held accountable for any damages incurred as per their agreement. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of negligence, arguing that even if negligence could be proven on part of the railway company, it would not absolve McKittrick from his contractual obligations. Furthermore, they contended that public policy considerations did not justify altering established principles of contract law in this instance.