In the Hampton v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company case of 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The plaintiff, Hampton, had sued for damages after a collision between his vehicle and one of the defendant's trains at a crossing resulted in injuries to him and damage to his property. He argued that there was negligence on part of the train operator who failed to sound any whistle or ring any bell as required by Arkansas law when approaching public crossings during daytime hours. However, evidence showed that he himself did not stop before driving onto tracks as mandated by state law which requires drivers must stop within fifty feet but not less than fifteen feet from nearest rail before proceeding across railroad grade crossings if they cannot see clearly down tracks due to curvature or other physical conditions for a distance sufficient to ensure no approaching train is near enough so as constitute an immediate hazard. The court held that both parties were guilty of statutory negligence - while it was true that no warning signals were given by train crew members upon their approach towards crossing where accident occurred; equally true was fact plaintiff drove onto track without stopping first despite being unable to view incoming traffic properly due its position around bend thereby violating safety rules set forth under Arkansas statute governing operation vehicles over railroad crossways thus contributing significantly towards cause incident itself hence could not recover damages sought against defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for Hampton v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to hold a railway company liable for damages caused by its employee during his lunch break. He argued that an employer should not be held responsible for actions taken by employees outside of their working hours or duties, even if they occur on company property. The justice emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting negligence on part of the railroad in this case; rather it was an unfortunate accident caused by personal negligence of one individual who happened to be a railroad employee but wasn't performing any work-related tasks at the time of incident. Therefore, he believed that holding employers accountable under such circumstances would set a dangerous precedent and unfairly burden businesses.