In the case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Sheegog, 1909, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Sheegog. The dispute arose when a train owned by Illinois Central Railroad Company collided with a wagon driven by Sheegog's employee resulting in damages to both parties involved. The railroad company argued that they were not liable for any damages as their train was moving at an appropriate speed and had given sufficient warning signals before crossing where collision occurred; hence it was negligence on part of wagon driver which caused accident. However, upon examination of evidence presented and laws applicable at that time regarding railway crossings - specifically those without gates or flagmen - court found that despite giving warnings if there is enough time to stop or slow down after seeing vehicle approaching crossing then it becomes duty of engineer driving train to do so in order to avoid accidents. The court held that even though Sheegog’s employee may have been negligent for not stopping his wagon prior to reaching tracks yet this did not absolve railroad company from its responsibility towards preventing such mishaps especially when they could be avoided by taking timely action.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Sheegog, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a verdict in favor of Sheegog was incorrect due to an error made by the trial court during jury instruction. The dissenting justices believed that this error had unfairly prejudiced the case against Illinois Central Railroad Company. They contended that while there may have been negligence on part of some employees, it did not necessarily mean that their actions were representative or authorized by the company itself as per respondeat superior doctrine (employer is responsible for employee’s actions). Therefore, they felt it unjust to hold Illinois Central liable without clear evidence proving such authorization or representation. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated and awarded in this case.