In the case of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Goodman, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company after a man was killed by one of its trains at an unguarded crossing. The court held that it was not negligence per se for a driver to cross railway tracks without stopping when there were no warning signals or barriers present; rather, drivers should stop and ensure that no train is approaching before proceeding across any railway track. This decision effectively shifted responsibility from railroads to individual drivers for accidents occurring at unguarded crossings.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Goodman, Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo disagreed with the majority's ruling that placed full responsibility on drivers to ensure their safety at railroad crossings. He argued that this decision ignored a key principle of negligence law: reasonable care under all circumstances. According to him, it was unreasonable and impractical to expect drivers always to stop, exit their vehicles, and visually check both directions before crossing tracks; weather conditions or physical impairments could make such actions impossible or dangerous in themselves. Instead of creating an absolute rule favoring railroads in these cases, he believed courts should consider each case individually based on its specific facts and circumstances - including whether the driver acted reasonably given those conditions and whether the train operator also took appropriate precautions.