In the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Bourman in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an injury claim by a railway employee against his employer under federal law. The plaintiff, Mr. Bourman was injured while working for Texas and Pacific Railway Company due to alleged negligence on part of the company's management. However, he had signed an employment contract that included a clause absolving his employer from liability for injuries sustained during work caused by fellow employees' negligence or incompetence. The court held that such contracts were not enforceable as they violated public policy outlined in Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). This act was designed to protect railroad workers from dangerous conditions at workplace and made it illegal for companies to exempt themselves from responsibility through contractual agreements with their employees. Therefore, despite having signed such agreement with his employer, Mr.Bourman could still sue them under FELA provisions because these clauses were deemed invalid by this ruling. The decision marked one of many instances where courts have prioritized worker safety over freedom of contract.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Bourman, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable for damages caused by a fire started by sparks from one of its locomotives was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company. They pointed out that operating a railroad inherently involves some risk of sparking fires, especially in dry conditions like those present at the time of this incident. Therefore, they argued, unless it could be shown that the railway company had failed to take reasonable precautions against such risks or had operated its trains in an unusually dangerous manner, it should not be held responsible for accidental damage resulting from ordinary operations.