In the case of Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Company, 1915, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pacific Express Company. The plaintiff, Rosenberger had sued for damages after a package he sent through Pacific Express was lost. He claimed that since he had not been asked to declare the value of his package upon shipping and hadn't signed any contract limiting liability on part of the company, they should be held responsible for its full value. However, it was found that there were notices posted at all offices stating their limited liability unless otherwise declared by sender which constituted as "public notice". The court concluded that this public notice served as an implicit agreement between both parties about limited liability even if no explicit declaration or signature took place from sender's side.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Pacific Express liable for damages after an employee was injured on its premises, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the company and thus it should not be held responsible for compensation. It further pointed out that accidents can occur even when all reasonable precautions have been taken and this does not necessarily imply negligence or liability. Therefore, according to this view, while unfortunate, such incidents are risks inherent in certain types of employment and do not automatically warrant employer liability unless clear proof of neglect or disregard for safety is demonstrated.