In the case of Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company v. Cumberland, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company collided with a wagon at an intersection in Washington D.C., resulting in injuries to Mr. Cumberland who was driving the wagon. He sued for damages alleging negligence on part of the railroad company and won both at trial court and appellate level before reaching Supreme Court. The key issue revolved around whether or not it was negligent for trains to run through city streets without having someone ahead to clear way (a common practice then). The Supreme Court held that this did not constitute negligence per se as there were no statutes requiring such action nor any universal custom mandating it; thus reversing lower courts' decisions. Furthermore, they stated that each case should be judged based on its own circumstances rather than applying blanket rules about what constitutes reasonable care under all conditions - emphasizing importance of context-specific analysis within tort law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company v. Cumberland argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the railroad company was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant errors made during trial, including improper jury instructions and an unfair bias towards the plaintiff due to his status as a minor. They contended that these issues had unfairly influenced the outcome of the case, leading to an unjust verdict against Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated for personal injury claims under Maryland law at this time period and felt it was excessive in this particular instance. Therefore, they would have overturned or remanded for retrial rather than affirming judgment.