In the 1902 case of Tubman v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, Tubman, was a passenger on one of their trains when he was injured due to an accident caused by a defective rail. He sued for damages but lost his case because it was determined that the railroad company had not been negligent in its maintenance or inspection procedures; they could not have known about the defect prior to the accident occurring. Therefore, they were not liable for injuries sustained during accidents that occurred as a result of unforeseeable circumstances beyond their control.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tubman v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases, particularly those involving negligence claims against railroad companies. The dissent believed that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant had been negligent in their duty of care towards passengers, which resulted in Tubman's injury. They contended that it should have been left up to a jury to decide whether or not this negligence directly caused his injuries rather than being decided by judges alone. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes “reasonable” precautions for ensuring passenger safety and felt it set an unfair precedent for future cases.