In the case of Bogart, as Executor of Lawrence, v. Southern Pacific Company in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad safety regulations and liability for accidents. The plaintiff was the executor of an estate whose beneficiary had been killed while working on a train operated by Southern Pacific Company. The deceased worker's job involved coupling cars together - a task that required him to step between them despite existing federal laws mandating safer procedures for such tasks. The defendant argued that they were not liable because their employee willingly undertook this dangerous work method instead of using available safer alternatives provided by them. The court sided with Southern Pacific Company stating that employers are not automatically liable when employees choose to ignore safety protocols and perform their duties in more hazardous ways than necessary or advised. This ruling established important precedent regarding employer liability and workers' compensation claims under circumstances where employees disregard company-provided safety measures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bogart, as Executor of Lawrence, v. Southern Pacific Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and misinterpreted the law. The dissenting justices believed that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotives if it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such incidents. They contended that accidents like these were an inherent risk associated with railway transportation at the time and could not always be prevented despite best efforts. Therefore, they felt it was unjust to hold companies financially responsible under such circumstances unless negligence could be proven beyond doubt.