In the case of Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company v. McKibbin, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of McKibbin. The dispute arose when a train owned by Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company collided with a wagon driven by McKibbin's employee, resulting in damages to both parties. The railway company argued that it was not liable for damages as the accident occurred due to negligence on part of McKibbin's employee who failed to stop and look before crossing the tracks despite clear visibility and audible warnings from an approaching train. However, Pennsylvania law required trains to slow down or stop at highway crossings if necessary for safety reasons regardless of whether there were signals or obstructions present on tracks. Therefore, based on this state law requirement which aimed at ensuring public safety over railroad operations efficiency, the court held that even though there might have been contributory negligence from Mckibbin’s side; still primary liability rested with Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company because they did not reduce speed or halt their train near crossroads where accidents are foreseeable.

In the dissenting opinion for Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company v. McKibbin, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Pennsylvania law regarding liability in railway accidents. He argued that under state law, a railroad company could only be held liable if it was proven to have been negligent and such negligence directly caused harm to an individual or property. In this case, he believed there was insufficient evidence to prove that the railway company had acted negligently or that any alleged negligence led directly to McKibbin's injuries. Therefore, he contended that the court should not have allowed a jury verdict against the railroad company based on speculation about possible causes of injury rather than concrete proof of negligence and causation as required by Pennsylvania law.