In the Columbus Southern Railway Company v. Wright case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Columbus Southern Railway Company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Columbus Southern collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Wright at an intersection where there were no safety gates or flagmen to warn about incoming trains. As a result of this accident, Mr.Wright suffered injuries and his horse was killed. He sued the railway company for negligence and won in lower courts which ordered the railway company to pay damages. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that while railways are obliged to exercise reasonable care for public safety at crossings, they are not required under common law or statute (unless specifically stated) to provide specific safeguards such as gates or flagmen at every crossing point along their tracks. The court found that despite tragic circumstances surrounding accidents like these, it would be unreasonable and impractical from both economic and operational perspectives for rail companies if they were legally obligated to maintain such measures across all intersections on their lines.

In the dissenting opinion for Columbus Southern Railway Company v. Wright, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an injured railway worker was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the employee had assumed certain risks when he took on his job and therefore, should not be entitled to damages from his employer after being hurt while working. They contended that these inherent dangers were part of what made up his wages and benefits package - essentially arguing that risk is factored into compensation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of negligence law as applied in this case; they felt there wasn't enough evidence presented at trial to prove negligence on behalf of the company or its employees which led directly to injury sustained by Mr. Wright.