The U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Behrens, Administrator in 1913 revolved around the issue of whether or not a railroad company could be held liable for an accident that resulted in death due to negligence on part of its employees. The plaintiff, Behrens, was the administrator of the estate of a man who died as a result of being struck by one of Illinois Central's trains while crossing its tracks at night time. The lower court ruled in favor of Behrens and awarded damages based on evidence suggesting that the train did not blow its whistle or ring its bell when approaching the crossing where the deceased was hit - which would have been against state law if proven true. However, upon appeal to Supreme Court it reversed this decision stating there wasn't sufficient evidence presented proving any statutory violation by railway company i.e., failure to sound warning signals before reaching crossings nor any contributory negligence from victim’s side like failing to stop and look out for incoming trains before attempting cross over track at night time were established beyond reasonable doubt during trial proceedings hence no liability can be imposed onto defendant under such circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Behrens, 1913, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to award damages to Behrens was incorrect because it relied on an assumption of negligence by the railroad company without sufficient evidence. He contended that there were other plausible explanations for why a train might be running late and therefore speeding, such as mechanical issues or unforeseen delays earlier in its route. Thus, he believed it was wrong to assume negligence simply based on speed alone. Furthermore, he noted that even if one could prove negligence due to excessive speed under normal conditions, this case involved a foggy night where visibility was poor - thus making it difficult to determine what would constitute "excessive" speed under these specific circumstances. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' dissenting view point ,the plaintiff failed both in proving negligence and causation which are essential elements in tort law.