In the case of United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 1928, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages to goods transported under a bill of lading that limited its liability unless it was proven negligent. The court ruled in favor of the Boston and Maine Railroad Company stating that when there is an agreement between parties limiting liability except in cases where negligence can be proven, then such agreements are valid and enforceable. Therefore, without proof of negligence on part of the carrier (Boston & Maine), they were not responsible for damage to goods during transit as per their bill of lading terms.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Boston & Maine Railroad, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not have the authority to order a railroad company to abandon its unprofitable branch lines without providing compensation. The dissenters believed that this constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. They contended that while Congress had given ICC regulatory power over railroads, it didn't include forcing them into bankruptcy by compelling abandonment of their properties at a loss. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view on "public interest", arguing instead that public interest should also consider financial health and survival of railroads as essential for overall economic well-being and national defense purposes.