In the case of Williams et al. v. Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., 1945, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiffs, employees of a paper mill owned by Kimberly-Clark Corporation, sued for damages after their employer's factory was destroyed by fire due to sparks from a passing train on tracks leased and operated by Green Bay & Western Railroad Company (GB&W). They argued that GB&W should be held liable for their lost wages as they were indirectly harmed by its negligence. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that while it is true that an individual can sue if directly injured due to another party’s negligence; one cannot claim compensation if he/she suffers indirect economic loss because such claims could lead to limitless liability which would be unfair and impractical. Therefore, even though GB&W may have been negligent in causing the fire at Kimberly-Clark's factory leading to job losses for workers there; these workers had no legal standing or right under common law principles to seek damages from GB&W since they were not direct victims but suffered only consequential economic harm.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams et al. v. Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Wisconsin statute, which allowed railroads to abandon unprofitable lines without approval from state regulatory bodies, undermined federal authority over interstate commerce. The dissenters believed this ruling could potentially lead to a patchwork of inconsistent state laws governing railroad operations and thereby disrupt national transportation policy. They also expressed concern about the potential harm caused by allowing railroads to cease service on certain lines without any oversight or consideration of public need, particularly in rural areas where alternative modes of transport might not be readily available.