In the 1896 case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Bloom's Administrator, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, overturning a lower court decision that had awarded damages to Bloom's estate following his death in a train accident. The central issue was whether or not negligence on part of the deceased could be considered as contributory negligence leading to his own death, thus absolving the railway company from liability for damages. The Supreme Court held that if an individual voluntarily places himself in a position where he knows (or should know) there is risk involved and subsequently suffers injury or death due to this known danger, then they are guilty of contributory negligence which can bar recovery against another party even if that party was also negligent.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Bloom's Administrator, Justice Harlan argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of federal law regarding liability for railway accidents. He contended that Congress intended to hold companies accountable when their negligence resulted in employee deaths, even if those employees contributed to their own demise through carelessness or recklessness. The majority's decision, he believed, undermined this intent by allowing companies to escape responsibility if they could prove any degree of fault on the part of deceased workers. This approach not only contradicted legislative intent but also placed an unreasonable burden on victims' families who were often ill-equipped to challenge powerful corporations in court.