In the 1899 case of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Howard, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Howard at an unguarded railroad crossing, resulting in his death. His widow sued for damages on grounds that negligence on part of the railway company caused her husband's death as they failed to provide adequate warning signals at their crossings or have flagmen present to warn travelers. The court held that while it was indeed unfortunate that Mr. Howard lost his life, there was no legal obligation for railroads to maintain guards or signals at every crossing under Kentucky law where this incident happened; hence they were not liable for damages due to negligence as claimed by Mrs.Howard. Furthermore, evidence showed that Mr.Howard had clear visibility down the tracks but chose not proceed cautiously which contributed significantly towards accident making him contributorily negligent. Thus,the court concluded liability could not be placed solely upon Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company because both parties shared responsibility in causing this tragic event.

In the dissenting opinion for Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Howard, it was argued that the court majority had erred in their interpretation of liability under West Virginia law. The dissent contended that the railway company should not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who knowingly chose to work in a dangerous environment without proper safety equipment provided by his employer. It was emphasized that employees have personal responsibility for their own safety and must exercise due care when working in hazardous conditions. Furthermore, they believed there were insufficient grounds to conclude negligence on part of the railway company as it could not be proven beyond doubt whether providing additional safety measures would have prevented the accident from occurring. Therefore, according to this view, holding employers accountable for accidents resulting from inherent risks associated with certain jobs sets a problematic precedent which may unduly burden businesses while absolving workers of any responsibility towards maintaining their own well-being at work.