In the Southern Pacific Company v. Pool case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Company. The dispute arose when Mr. Pool sued Southern Pacific for damages after he was injured while working as a brakeman due to alleged negligence on part of the company's employees and defective equipment provided by them. He won his claim at both district court level and circuit court level, with each awarding him $10,000 in damages. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court by Southern Pacific Company, it was found that there were errors made during jury instructions at trial which may have influenced their decision unfairly against the railroad company. Specifically, these errors related to how responsibility for ensuring safe work conditions should be apportioned between employers and employees under federal law. The Supreme Court held that an employee has a duty to inspect their own tools if they are capable of doing so before starting work; thus partially shifting blame onto Mr.Pool himself for not checking his equipment properly before use.The ruling overturned previous decisions from lower courts granting compensation to Mr.Pool.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Pacific Company v. Pool, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to provide equal facilities for all passengers regardless of race or color was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying corporations equal protection under the law. They contended that corporations are persons within the meaning of this amendment and therefore have rights which cannot be infringed upon by state legislation. Furthermore, they asserted that there is no basis in either reason or authority for distinguishing between natural and artificial persons (corporations) when interpreting constitutional provisions intended to secure equality before the law. Thus, they concluded that any statute which discriminates against certain individuals or classes - whether these are natural persons or corporations - is unconstitutional as it denies them equal protection under laws.