In the case of Pierce v. Somerset Railway (1898), the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership and usage rights between a railway company and an individual property owner. The plaintiff, Pierce, owned land that was bisected by tracks belonging to Somerset Railway. He claimed that his ability to use his property was severely hindered due to the railway's operations which included blocking access across the tracks for extended periods of time. The court had to determine whether this constituted unreasonable interference with private property rights. The court ruled in favor of Pierce, stating that while railroads have certain privileges necessary for their operation, these should not unduly infringe upon private property rights without proper compensation or agreement from the owner. They found that Somerset Railway’s actions were excessive and beyond what could be considered reasonable use associated with running a railroad service. This decision reinforced principles regarding eminent domain - government power to take private property for public use - requiring it must be balanced against individuals' right to make full use of their own properties.

The dissenting opinion in the Pierce v. Somerset Railway case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding negligence and liability. The dissenting justices contended that the plaintiff, who was injured while working on a railway construction project, should not be held responsible for his own injuries simply because he continued to work after noticing potential dangers. They believed this placed an unreasonable burden on workers to assess risks associated with their jobs, which they may not have been qualified or able to do accurately. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of contributory negligence law as it applied in this case; arguing instead that even if Pierce had contributed somewhat to his injury through his actions or lack thereof, this did not absolve Somerset Railway of its duty of care towards him as an employee.