In the Union Pacific Railway Company v. Harris case of 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Union Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when a shipment was damaged during transit due to negligence on part of the railway company's employees. However, there was an existing contract between both parties that exempted the railway company from any liability for damages caused by its own negligence or that of its servants. Therefore, despite acknowledging their fault in handling and damaging goods belonging to Harris, they denied responsibility based on this contractual agreement. The court held that such contracts are not against public policy and do not absolve carriers from all obligations but merely limit their liability under certain conditions agreed upon by both parties involved. It further stated that it is within a carrier’s rights to make special contracts relating to transportation provided they are reasonable and justifiable. This decision reinforced carriers' ability to limit their liabilities through contractual agreements while also emphasizing these limitations must be fair and reasonable.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Union Pacific Railway Company v. Harris argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to properly apply established legal principles. The dissent contended that the railway company should be held liable for injuries suffered by Mr. Harris, an employee who was injured while working on a train car due to faulty equipment provided by his employer, despite having knowledge of its defective condition but no other choice than to use it because it was necessary for his work duties. They believed this constituted negligence on part of the company as they had not ensured safe working conditions or tools for their employees which led directly to injury sustained by Mr.Harris during course of employment.The dissent also disagreed with majority’s interpretation and application of “assumption risk” doctrine stating that workers cannot assume risks associated with unsafe equipment if they are unaware about them or have no reasonable alternative available.This view emphasized more on employers' responsibility towards ensuring safety at workplace rather than shifting blame onto employees under assumption risk principle.