The U.S. Supreme Court case Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company v. Hickey in 1896 revolved around a dispute over the liability of a street railway company for injuries sustained by an individual due to negligence on part of the company's employees. The plaintiff, Hickey, was injured when he fell from one of the defendant's cars after being struck by another car operated negligently by the defendant’s employee. The court held that while common carriers like railroads are not insurers against all accidents to passengers, they owe their passengers utmost care and diligence to protect them from injury which can be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as probable consequences of negligent acts or omissions. Therefore, if an accident occurs through some unforeseeable event beyond human control (an act of God), then no liability attaches; but if it is caused even partially by negligence on part of carrier’s servants within scope of their employment - whether acting independently or jointly - then carrier will be liable.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company v. Hickey, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law. He contended that under District of Columbia statutes, it is not necessary to prove negligence in order to hold a street railway company liable for injuries caused by its cars. Instead, he asserted that liability should be determined based on whether or not due care was exercised by both parties involved in an accident. In this case, he believed there was sufficient evidence to suggest that due care had been exercised by Mr. Hickey but not by the railroad company; therefore, according to his interpretation of local laws and regulations governing such matters within D.C., they should have been held accountable for damages incurred as a result of their actions.