In the case of United States et al. v. Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a carrier could be held liable for damages that occurred during transit, even if they were caused by an independent contractor hired by the shipper. The court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co., stating that carriers are not responsible for losses or damages incurred when goods are transported under a non-negotiable bill of lading and handled by an independent contractor chosen without their consent. This decision clarified that while carriers have certain responsibilities to ensure safe transport, they cannot be held accountable for actions outside their control taken by third parties involved in shipping processes.

In the dissenting opinion for UNITED STATES ET AL. v. TEXAS & PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 204(a) of the Motor Carrier Act, which he believed was intended to protect carriers from unreasonable demands by shippers and receivers rather than to regulate their hours of service. He argued that Congress did not intend for this provision to be used as a means of regulating working conditions or wages in the trucking industry, but instead aimed at preventing abuses by those who might exploit carriers' need for business. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had intended such regulation it would have explicitly stated so within the legislation itself or given clear indication through legislative history - neither of which were present in this case according to him.