In the 1893 case of Prosser v. Northern Pacific Railroad, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northern Pacific Railroad, affirming a lower court's decision that had dismissed a suit brought by William L. Prosser against the railroad company for non-payment of bonds issued to him as part payment for land he sold them. The main issue was whether or not these bonds were legally binding contracts and if they could be enforced by law since they were issued under an act which Congress later repealed before maturity date of said bonds. The Court held that despite this repeal, it did not invalidate existing obligations such as those between Mr.Prosser and Northern Pacific Railroad; therefore, making them still enforceable under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Prosser v. Northern Pacific Railroad, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny Mr. Prosser's claim against Northern Pacific Railroad was incorrect and inconsistent with established legal principles. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Prosser had a valid claim because he suffered damages as a direct result of the railroad company's negligence in maintaining its tracks, which led to his injury while working on those tracks. They contended that an employer has an inherent duty of care towards their employees and should be held accountable when they fail in this responsibility leading to harm or loss for their workers. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of contributory negligence doctrine applied by lower courts, arguing instead that even if Mr.Prosser might have been partially responsible for his injuries due to not exercising enough caution at work, this shouldn't completely absolve the company from liability given its own proven negligence.