In the case of Norfolk-Southern Railroad Company v. Owens, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when a train owned by Norfolk-Southern collided with a truck driven by Owens at an intersection where there were no warning signals or guards present. As a result, Owens was injured and his vehicle damaged. He sued for damages on grounds that negligence on part of the railroad company led to this accident as they failed to provide adequate warnings at such intersections which are frequently used by public vehicles. The court held that while it is indeed necessary for railroads to exercise due care in operating their trains so as not to endanger life or property, it does not mean they have an absolute duty under all circumstances and conditions to avoid injury from collisions at highway crossings. It was found that both parties had equal responsibility towards ensuring safety - while railroads must operate their trains carefully, drivers too should approach railway tracks cautiously. Therefore, since there wasn't any evidence proving gross negligence on part of Norfolk-Southern (like running its train recklessly), nor did it violate any statutory obligation regarding provision of warnings/signals/guards at every crossing point; hence liability could not be imposed upon them solely based on occurrence of collision.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Norfolk-Southern Railroad Company v. Owens argued that the majority's decision was not consistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissent believed that FELA should be interpreted to allow for recovery when an employee is injured due to negligence on part of their employer, even if they were aware of potential risks associated with their job. They contended that it was unfair and against public policy to expect employees, who often have little choice or control over working conditions, to bear all responsibility for workplace injuries. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation regarding contributory negligence under FELA - arguing instead that such a defense should only apply if an employee willingly chose a dangerous course of action despite safer alternatives being available.