In the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Whiteaker (1915), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train owned by the company collided with a horse-drawn wagon driven by Mr. Whiteaker at an intersection in Oklahoma City, resulting in injuries to him and his wife who was also present during this incident. The couple sued for damages alleging negligence on part of the railway company as they claimed that there were no warning signals or guards at this crossing which led to their accident. The court held that under federal law, it is not obligatory for railroads to maintain such safeguards at every highway crossing within city limits unless ordered by competent authority or if circumstances demand special precautions due to unusual danger involved. It further stated that mere occurrence of an accident does not prove negligence on part of railroad companies. Therefore, since there was no evidence presented showing any exceptional risk associated with this particular intersection nor any directive from authorities requiring additional safety measures here; and considering general urban conditions where traffic is expectedly heavy and drivers are assumed to exercise caution while approaching railroad crossings - it concluded that failure to provide warnings/guards did not constitute negligence per se from railway's side.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Whiteaker, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to hold the railway company liable for damages incurred by Mr. Whiteaker during his employment as a switchman. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company and thus they should not be held responsible for compensating Mr. Whiteaker's injuries sustained while performing his duties at work. They contended that accidents can occur even when all safety precautions are taken and this does not necessarily imply negligence or fault from an employer’s side; hence, liability cannot always be assigned based on unfortunate outcomes alone without clear proof of neglectful behavior leading directly to harm caused.