In the case of Great Northern Railway Company v. Wiles, Administrator in 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an accident that occurred at a railway crossing. The plaintiff's decedent was killed when his wagon was struck by one of the defendant's trains at a crossing where there were neither gates nor flagmen present to warn him of approaching trains. The court held that it is not negligence per se for a railroad company to fail to maintain gates or employ flagmen at every highway crossing over its tracks; rather, whether such precautions are necessary depends upon circumstances and conditions surrounding each particular crossing - including frequency and speed of trains, nature and extent of travel over the highway etc., which should be decided by jury as matter-of-fact based on evidence presented during trial proceedings. The court also clarified that while contributory negligence (i.e., any failure on part of victim himself/herself contributing towards accident) can bar recovery in some cases under common law principles; however if state statute provides otherwise then such statutory provisions would prevail overriding common law rules.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Great Northern Railway Company v. Wiles, 1915, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles and precedent. The dissent contended that under common law, an employer is not liable for injuries to an employee caused by fellow employees unless it can be proven that negligence on part of the employer contributed to such injury. It further stated that this principle should apply even when there are statutory provisions requiring employers to compensate injured workers without regard to fault or negligence. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and believed they were misapplied in this case. They held firm on their belief that these laws did not intend to change fundamental principles regarding liability but rather sought only to provide a more efficient remedy for injured workers who could prove their employers' negligence.