In the case of Midland Valley Railroad Company v. Barkley et al., 1927, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Barkley and his co-respondents. The dispute arose when a train owned by Midland Valley Railroad Company collided with an automobile at a crossing, resulting in injuries to its occupants. The victims sued for damages alleging negligence on part of the railroad company due to lack of adequate warning signs or signals at the crossing point. In response, Midland argued that it was not required under Arkansas law to maintain such warnings unless ordered by state authorities - which they had not been. The court rejected this argument stating that irrespective of specific orders from local authorities, railroads have an inherent duty towards public safety and must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers at crossings even if there is no explicit statutory requirement for them to do so.

In the dissenting opinion for MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. BARKLEY et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Midland Valley Railroad Company liable for damages incurred by Barkley during a fire caused by sparks from one of its locomotives, failed to consider key factors. The dissent pointed out that there were no regulations or laws in place at the time requiring spark arresters on locomotives and thus, it was not negligent per se for the company to operate without them. Furthermore, they contended that while negligence could be inferred from operating an engine in such a way as to set fire to adjacent property, this inference should not be automatic but rather based on circumstances including precautions taken and customary practices of other railroads under similar conditions. They also disagreed with imposing liability without fault when damage is done by sparks unavoidably emitted despite all reasonable care and precaution.