In Pierre Claude Piquignot v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties. Plaintiff in error, Mr. Piquignot had entered into a contract with defendant railroad company to transport goods from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh for $1 per ton and was paid only half that amount upon delivery. He then sued for damages based on his claim that he was entitled to full payment according to their agreement. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and held that when one party fails or refuses to perform its part of a contract, it is liable for any resulting damage caused by such failure or refusal; thus awarding him damages equal to what he would have received if they had fully performed their contractual obligations as agreed upon initially.

In the dissenting opinion of Pierre Claude Piquignot v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Justice McLean argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for his injuries because he had assumed all risks associated with riding on a railroad car and thus could not recover from the defendant. He reasoned that since railroads were a new form of transportation, it was reasonable for passengers to assume some risk when using them. Furthermore, he stated that any negligence on behalf of the defendant should be addressed through legislation rather than in court as this would provide more consistent results across cases involving similar issues. Finally, Justice McLean noted that allowing recovery in this case would open up an avenue for numerous claims against railroads which could lead to increased costs and decreased efficiency due to litigation expenses and delays caused by lawsuits.