In the 1895 case of St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. James, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, reversing a decision made by the Kansas Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Mr. James had sued for damages after his cattle were killed on an unfenced portion of the railroad's track which ran through his land - a violation of state law requiring railroads to fence their tracks where they crossed private property to prevent livestock from wandering onto them. However, it was found that this particular section was exempted as it fell within city limits where fencing wasn't required under local ordinances or common law rules applicable at that time period due to urbanization needs and safety concerns related with fencing near populated areas or stations. The court held that while states have power over internal improvements affecting public health and welfare including regulation of railways; such powers should not infringe upon interstate commerce regulations set forth by Congress under Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8) hence any state laws conflicting with federal ones would be deemed unconstitutional. This ruling emphasized supremacy clause principles asserting dominance of federal laws over state ones when there is conflict between two especially involving matters pertaining interstate commerce thus setting important precedent for future cases dealing similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. James case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railway company liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence of another employee contradicted previous rulings on similar cases. The dissent emphasized that under common law principles, employers were not typically held responsible for accidents caused by their employees' carelessness unless there was evidence of direct negligence or misconduct from the employer itself. It also pointed out inconsistencies in how this principle had been applied in different jurisdictions across states, leading to confusion and unpredictability in its enforcement. Furthermore, it warned against expanding liability rules without clear legislative guidance as such decisions could have far-reaching implications beyond what courts might anticipate.