In the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Chiles (1908), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Western Union, stating that a telegraph company could not be held liable for mistakes made by its employees if it had provided reasonable care and skill in transmitting and delivering messages. The plaintiff, Chiles, sued Western Union for damages after an error was made in a telegram regarding a land deal he was involved with. He claimed that this mistake caused him to lose out on potential profits from the sale of his property. However, the court found no evidence to suggest negligence or lack of skill on part of Western Union's employees while handling Chiles' message. Therefore, they concluded that any losses incurred were due to circumstances beyond their control and hence they couldn't be held responsible.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Chiles argued that the majority's decision to hold Western Union liable for damages was incorrect, as it failed to consider the company's contractual obligations and limitations. The dissent emphasized that telegraph companies, like other common carriers, are not insurers but merely obligated to use reasonable skill and diligence in their operations. It contended that there was no evidence showing negligence or lack of due care on part of Western Union which could justify imposing liability for consequential damages resulting from delayed delivery of a message about a business transaction. Furthermore, it pointed out that such potential liabilities could be enormous and unpredictable making them commercially untenable if applied universally across all transactions facilitated by telegraph companies.