In the Southern Pacific Company v. Haglund case of 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Company. The dispute arose when a train operated by Southern Pacific collided with an automobile at a railway crossing, resulting in two deaths and one injury. The victims' families sued for damages under Oregon law which required railroads to maintain fences along their tracks except at crossings; they argued that if such fence had been present, it would have prevented the car from entering onto the track. However, this state law was inconsistent with federal regulations that did not require fencing around railroad tracks and aimed to ensure uniformity across states regarding railroad safety measures. The Supreme Court held that federal laws regulating interstate commerce superseded conflicting state laws under what is known as "the Supremacy Clause" of U.S Constitution (Article VI). Therefore, since there was no violation on part of Southern Pacific according to federal standards - which were designed specifically for promoting safety in interstate transportation - it could not be held liable for damages based on contradictory requirements imposed by Oregon's state legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Pacific Company v. Haglund, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold Southern Pacific liable for damages was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of the railroad company in relation to a fire which caused damage to private property. They contended that just because a spark from an engine may have started the fire, this did not automatically mean negligence occurred; fires can be sparked by engines even with proper care and maintenance. Furthermore, they disagreed with imposing liability without clear proof of negligent behavior or violation of safety regulations by Southern Pacific Company. This viewpoint held firm on principles requiring concrete evidence before assigning blame and financial responsibility.