In the 1914 case of Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tilghman, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seaboard Air Line Railway. The dispute arose when Mrs. Tilghman sued the railway company for damages after her husband was killed by a train at an unguarded crossing near their home in South Carolina. She argued that it was negligent on part of the railway to not have any warning signals or guards at such crossings and this negligence resulted in her husband's death. The court, however, held that while it is indeed desirable for railways to take all possible precautions to prevent accidents at crossings, they are not legally obligated to do so unless specifically required by state law or local ordinance - neither of which were applicable here. Furthermore, evidence showed Mr.Tilghman had been familiar with this particular crossing and should have known about its dangers; hence he failed his duty as well towards ensuring his own safety. Therefore,the court concluded that although tragic,the accident could not be attributed solely due to negligence on part of Seaboard Air Line Railway,and thus dismissed Mrs.Tilghman's claim for damages.

In the dissenting opinion for Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tilghman, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that held the railway company liable for damages caused by a fire started from sparks emitted by one of its locomotives. He argued that there was no negligence on part of the railway company as it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an incident and therefore should not be held responsible. The justice contended that accidents can happen even when all due care has been exercised and in such cases, liability should not automatically fall upon those involved in dangerous activities like running a railroad. He believed this decision would set a precedent where companies could be unfairly penalized despite taking necessary safety measures.