In the case of Chunn v. City and Suburban Railway of Washington in 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving personal injury sustained while using public transportation. The plaintiff, Mr. Chunn, was injured when he attempted to board a moving streetcar operated by the defendant company (City and Suburban Railway). He claimed that his injuries were due to negligence on part of the railway company's employees who failed to stop for him at designated stops or warn him not to board while it was in motion. The court found that although there may have been some degree of negligence from both parties involved, primary responsibility lay with Mr.Chunn as he took an unnecessary risk by trying to get onto a moving vehicle despite knowing it could be dangerous; hence contributing significantly towards his own harm - this principle is known as contributory negligence. Therefore, even though there might have been some fault on behalf of the railway company’s staff members too but since Mr.Chunn himself acted negligently which led directly towards his injuries so no damages were awarded against City and Suburban Railway Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chunn v. City and Suburban Railway of Washington argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the railway company was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railway company, which had been sued for damages by an injured passenger. It also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of evidence during trial proceedings, arguing this led to an unfair verdict against the defendant. Furthermore, it questioned whether or not contributory negligence should have been considered as a factor in determining liability since it wasn't clear if plaintiff’s own actions contributed towards his injury. The dissent believed these issues were significant enough that they warranted overturning the previous judgment and granting a new trial.