In the case of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer, 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train operated by Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company collided with a wagon driven by Mr. Behlmer at a railway crossing resulting in his death. His widow sued for damages claiming negligence on part of the railroad company as they failed to provide adequate warning signals at that particular crossing point which was known to be dangerous due to obstructions limiting visibility. The court held that while it is indeed incumbent upon railroads to exercise reasonable care and caution at crossings, this does not translate into an absolute duty for them to install warning signals or devices at every such location irrespective of other circumstances. It further noted that there were no statutory requirements mandating specific warnings or precautions at railway crossings during that time period. Moreover, evidence suggested Mr.Behlmer had clear sight lines down the track before reaching it but did not stop nor look for approaching trains despite knowing about potential risks associated with such crossings from prior experience - thus failing himself in exercising due diligence expected from any ordinary prudent person under similar conditions. Hence,the court concluded Mrs.Behlmer could not recover damages as her husband's own contributory negligence played significant role leading up-to his unfortunate demise.

In the dissenting opinion for Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to provide separate but equal accommodations for black and white passengers violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that segregation inherently implied inequality, as it suggested that one race was unfit to associate with another. It also pointed out inconsistencies in how this principle was applied; while racial separation was mandated on trains, no such laws existed for other public spaces like streets or parks. Furthermore, they noted potential difficulties in determining who should be considered "colored," suggesting this could lead to arbitrary enforcement of segregation laws based on subjective judgments about an individual's appearance rather than their actual racial identity.