In the 1931 case Henkel, Administratrix v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company after a fatal accident involving one of its trains and an automobile driven by Mr. Henkel at a crossing point in Wisconsin led to his death. The plaintiff (Henkel's widow) argued that her husband’s death was due to negligence on part of the railway company as it failed to provide adequate warning signals at this particular crossing point which had been known for frequent accidents previously too. However, upon examination of evidence and facts presented before them including testimonies from eyewitnesses who stated that Mr.Henkel did not stop or slow down his vehicle while approaching the railroad tracks despite visible warnings present around him such as flashing red lights indicating an incoming train; Justice Sutherland writing for majority concluded that there was no negligence on part of Railway Company but rather contributory negligence by Mr.Henkel himself leading to his own demise. The court held that even though railroads have duty towards public safety they cannot be held liable if individuals fail their own responsibility towards self-preservation especially when sufficient warnings are provided.

In the dissenting opinion for Henkel v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss Mrs. Henkel's claim against the railway company for her husband's death due to negligence on their part while he was working as a switchman in their employ. The majority ruled that because Mr.Henkel had assumed risk by taking up such employment and his wife should have been aware of this when she married him, therefore they dismissed her claims under Wisconsin law which did not allow recovery if an employee knowingly took on dangerous work without protest or objection from his employer about its safety conditions. Justice Stone argued that it was unjust to deny compensation based solely on assumption of risk doctrine especially since there were no clear evidence indicating whether Mr.Henkel knew about these risks or not before accepting employment with them; furthermore even if he did know about them it would still be unfair because employees often do not have much choice but accept whatever jobs are available regardless how risky they might be due to economic circumstances beyond their control like unemployment rates etcetera so denying compensation just because someone accepted a job knowing its dangers is fundamentally unfair according to him.