In the 1922 case of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Fruchter, an infant, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff was a child who had been injured by one of the defendant's trains while playing on its tracks in Connecticut. The court held that under Connecticut law, railroads were not liable for injuries to trespassers unless they were willfully or wantonly caused. Since there was no evidence suggesting that this injury was intentionally inflicted by any employee of the railroad company and since it is generally accepted that children are capable of understanding dangers associated with railways at age six (the plaintiff being older), it could not be argued that he did not comprehend his perilous situation when he chose to play on or near railway tracks.

In the dissenting opinion for New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Fruchter, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to compensate those injured on their property even if they were trespassers went against previous court rulings and principles of fairness. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling unfairly burdened railroad companies with an excessive level of responsibility for individuals who unlawfully enter their properties without permission or lawful reason. They contended that such laws should not force private entities like railroads to bear the cost of injuries sustained by trespassers due to their own negligence or reckless behavior. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications this could have on commerce and industry in general as it might encourage unlawful behaviors while discouraging investments in these sectors due to increased liabilities.