In the case of Union Pacific Railway Company v. Wyler (1894), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Union Pacific Railway Company, reversing a decision made by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. The dispute arose when Wyler sued for damages after his cattle were killed on a railway track owned by Union Pacific. He claimed that it was due to negligence on part of the company as they failed to maintain fences along their tracks which would have prevented such incidents from occurring. However, upon review, it was found that there was no statutory or common law requirement for railways to fence their tracks in Nebraska at that time and hence, they could not be held liable for any damage caused due to lack thereof.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Union Pacific Railway Company v. Wyler argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with established principles of law and equity. The dissent contended that, under common law, a person who voluntarily assumes a risk cannot later complain if they suffer harm as a result. In this case, Mr. Wyler knowingly chose to travel on an unfinished railway line and should therefore bear responsibility for any injuries he sustained during his journey. Furthermore, the dissent pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest negligence on part of Union Pacific Railway Company or its employees; rather it appeared that all reasonable precautions had been taken to ensure passenger safety despite ongoing construction work along certain sections of track.