The Richmond and Alleghany Railroad Company v. R.A. Patterson Tobacco Company case in 1897 revolved around a dispute over the transportation of tobacco products by the railroad company for the tobacco firm. The latter claimed that their goods were damaged due to negligence on part of the former, which led them to seek compensation for their losses. However, it was found that there was an agreement between both parties stating that any damages incurred during transit would not be compensated unless they were caused by gross negligence or fraud from the railroad company's side - neither of which could be proven in this instance. Therefore, despite acknowledging some damage to goods transported, since no evidence pointed towards gross negligence or fraudulence on behalf of Richmond and Alleghany Railroad Company, they weren't held liable for compensating R.A Patterson Tobacco Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Richmond and Alleghany Railroad Company v. R.A. Patterson Tobacco Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for damages caused by an unexpected flood was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that such natural disasters were beyond human control and thus should not be grounds for holding a carrier responsible under common law principles of bailment, which require negligence or misconduct on part of the bailee (in this case, the railroad). They contended that there was no evidence suggesting any negligence or failure in duty on behalf of the railroad company; rather, they had taken all reasonable precautions to protect their cargo from damage. Therefore, according to these justices, imposing liability in such circumstances would set an unfair precedent where carriers could be held accountable for unforeseeable events outside their control.