In the Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railroad Company case of 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Virginia Midland Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Gleeson had sued for damages after a collision between his horse-drawn carriage and one of the company's trains resulted in injuries to him and death to his horses. He alleged that negligence on part of railroad employees caused this accident as they failed to sound a whistle or ring a bell when approaching an intersection where visibility was limited due to curves and embankments. However, evidence showed that there were no such obstructions at this crossing which would have necessitated additional warning signals beyond those required by law (a flagman during daytime). Furthermore, it was revealed that Gleeson himself did not take necessary precautions while crossing despite knowing about incoming train traffic from prior experience with similar situations at same location - thus contributing significantly towards occurrence of said incident through his own negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply principles of negligence law. The dissenting justices believed that there were factual issues regarding whether or not the railroad company had acted negligently in its duty to maintain safe conditions on their property, which should have been left for a jury to decide rather than being determined by judges as a matter of law. They contended that if any evidence suggested potential negligence on part of the defendant, then it was inappropriate for courts to dismiss cases without allowing them to go before juries. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given by majority justices towards certain pieces of evidence over others in reaching their conclusion about lack of negligence from defendant's side.