In the Great Northern Railway Company v. Knapp case of 1915, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Mr. Knapp sued for damages after his wife was killed at a railroad crossing operated by Great Northern Railway Company. He claimed that there were no adequate warnings or safeguards to prevent such accidents from happening and thus held the company liable for negligence resulting in wrongful death. However, evidence showed that Mrs.Knapp had ignored existing warning signals before attempting to cross over tracks where an oncoming train struck her vehicle causing fatal injuries. The court found that while it is indeed incumbent upon rail companies to provide reasonable safety measures at crossings, individuals also have a responsibility not to disregard these precautions once they are put into place - as was done by Mrs.Knapp according to witness testimonies and other evidences presented during trial proceedings. Therefore, despite acknowledging tragic circumstances surrounding this incident, justices concluded that liability could not be assigned solely onto defendant (Great Northern Railway) because plaintiff's decedent (Mrs.Knapp) failed in exercising due care which contributed significantly towards occurrence of said accident.

In the dissenting opinion for the Great Northern Railway Company v. Knapp case, it was argued that the majority's ruling failed to consider important aspects of railway operation and regulation. The dissenting justices believed that a railroad company should not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who knowingly violated safety rules, as long as those rules were reasonable and consistently enforced. They contended that employees are better positioned than employers to prevent accidents since they have direct control over their actions while on duty. Therefore, placing all responsibility on companies could discourage workers from adhering to safety regulations and promote carelessness or recklessness in performing their duties. Furthermore, this approach might undermine efforts by state legislatures and regulatory bodies to improve workplace safety through rulemaking and enforcement mechanisms designed specifically for railroads' unique operational environment.