In the 1901 case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Callender, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train conductor, employed by Texas & Pacific Railway Company, was injured while working due to an alleged negligence on part of his employer. He sued for damages and won at both district court level and appellate court level in Louisiana state courts. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was determined that under federal law - specifically the Employers' Liability Act - employees could not sue their employers for injuries sustained during work if they had assumed risk as part of their employment contract or were contributory negligent themselves. As such, since these conditions applied to Mr.Callender's situation as he knew about potential risks involved with his job but continued working anyway without complaint or request for safer conditions; hence he couldn't claim compensation from his employer according to this ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Callender, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's ruling that a railroad company could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence if it had contracted out of liability. He argued that such contracts were against public policy and should therefore be unenforceable. According to him, allowing companies to contract out of their responsibilities would lead to carelessness and recklessness as they would have no incentive to exercise due diligence in ensuring safety. Furthermore, he believed this decision was inconsistent with previous rulings where similar contracts were deemed invalid because they violated public policy or statutory law. Thus, he concluded that the court erred in its judgment by failing to uphold principles of justice and fairness.