In the case of Pensick & Gordon, Inc. v. California Motor Express et al., 1962, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a carrier could be held liable for damages to goods during transit if they were not properly packed by the shipper. The dispute arose when a shipment of lamps transported by California Motor Express from Pensick & Gordon's warehouse in Los Angeles to their customer in San Francisco arrived damaged due to inadequate packing. The court ruled that under federal law (the Carmack Amendment), carriers are generally responsible for damage occurring during transportation unless it can be proven that one of five exceptions applies - including improper packing by the shipper which is beyond control or knowledge of carrier and causes damage despite reasonable care taken by carrier itself. In this case, since there was no evidence showing that California Motor Express knew about or should have known about inadequacy in packaging and still took all necessary precautions while transporting goods; therefore, it cannot be held liable for damages.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pensick & Gordon, Inc. v. California Motor Express et al., argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important aspects of interstate commerce regulation. The dissent emphasized that Congress had granted states broad authority to regulate motor carriers operating within their borders under the Federal-Aid Highway Act, including setting reasonable rates for intrastate transportation services. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law as preempting state regulatory power over these matters, arguing instead that such an expansive reading would undermine a careful balance between federal and state interests established by Congress itself. Furthermore, they contended that there was no evidence showing California’s rate-setting process interfered with free competition or resulted in discriminatory practices against out-of-state businesses – key concerns underlying preemption doctrine – thus making it unnecessary and inappropriate to invoke this principle here.