In Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a passenger who was injured during a train derailment caused by an act of sabotage, overturning lower court decisions that had sided with the railroad company. The plaintiff, Mrs. Shenker, sued for damages resulting from her injuries and argued that under common carrier liability principles, the railroad owed its passengers "the highest degree of care" to ensure their safety and could be held liable even if it was not directly at fault for causing harm or injury. The defendant countered this argument by asserting they were not responsible as they couldn't have foreseen or prevented such malicious acts like sabotage which led to the accident. However, Justice Hugo Black delivered majority opinion stating that while railroads cannot guarantee absolute safety against all dangers including those arising from public enemies' actions; yet when it comes to paying passengers - carriers are expected to use utmost care and diligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Shenker v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow punitive damages in a case of gross negligence was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to unpredictable results. He pointed out that punitive damages are typically reserved for cases where there is intentional wrongdoing, not just extreme carelessness. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how juries would be able to determine what constitutes "gross" negligence as opposed to ordinary negligence, suggesting it would create confusion and inconsistency in future cases. He also questioned whether it was fair or appropriate for a private plaintiff to receive a windfall in the form of punitive damages intended to punish the defendant and deter others from similar conduct.