In the 1892 case of Root v. Third Avenue Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a New York state law that required street railway companies to maintain fences on both sides of their tracks violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiff, Root, argued that this law unfairly burdened railroad companies and therefore constituted an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process. However, the court disagreed with this argument and upheld the constitutionality of the law. In its decision, it reasoned that such regulations were within a state's police power if they promoted public safety or welfare - in this case by preventing accidents involving pedestrians or vehicles crossing railway tracks. Therefore, even though these requirements imposed costs on railroad companies (which could potentially be passed onto consumers), they did not violate constitutional protections against arbitrary government action.

In the dissenting opinion for Root v. Third Avenue Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a street railway company liable for injuries sustained by an individual who voluntarily placed himself in danger contradicted established legal principles. The dissent emphasized that there should be no liability without fault and pointed out that the plaintiff knowingly put himself at risk by attempting to board a moving train, which is inherently dangerous. It was also noted that while corporations should not be exempt from responsibility when their actions cause harm, they shouldn't be held accountable for accidents resulting from individuals' reckless behavior either. Therefore, according to this view, since the accident resulted primarily from the plaintiff's own recklessness rather than any negligence on part of the railroad company, holding them responsible would set a problematic precedent.