In the case of Great Northern Railway Company v. Reed et al., 1925, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Great Northern Railway Company. The dispute arose when a train owned by the railway company collided with an automobile at a crossing, resulting in injuries to occupants of the car and damage to both vehicles. The injured parties sued for damages claiming that negligence on part of the railway company caused this accident as they failed to provide adequate warning signals at that particular crossing point. The court held that under Montana law (where incident occurred), it was not obligatory for railroad companies to maintain such warnings unless ordered by public authorities or if there were special circumstances indicating unusual danger at crossings which wasn't proven here. Therefore, absence of these signals did not constitute negligence per se from railway's side. Furthermore, evidence suggested that driver could have avoided collision had he looked properly before attempting cross over but didn't do so due his own negligent behavior thus contributing significantly towards accident occurrence. Consequently, based on these findings and interpretations; court reversed lower courts' judgments against Great Northern Railway Company absolving them off any liability claims arising out this incident.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Northern Railway Company v. Reed et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was a reasonable expectation of safety on behalf of Mr. Reed, who had been injured while attempting to board a moving train. He contended that if someone chooses to take an action knowing full well its inherent risks and dangers, then they should bear responsibility for any resulting injuries rather than placing blame on others involved in the situation. In this case, he believed Mr. Reed knowingly took a risk by trying to board a moving train and thus should be held accountable for his own injury instead of shifting liability onto the railway company.