In the case of Toledo Railways & Light Company v. Hill et al., Executors of Kirk, 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Toledo Railways & Light Company. The dispute arose when a streetcar owned by the railway company collided with a horse-drawn wagon driven by Mr. Kirk, resulting in his death. His executors sued for damages and won at both trial court and Ohio's Supreme Court level on grounds that negligence was proven against the motorman operating the streetcar who failed to ring his bell or sound any warning before approaching an intersection where he struck Mr.Kirk’s vehicle from behind. However, upon appeal to US Supreme Court it reversed these decisions stating that under Ohio law there is no absolute duty imposed on a motorman to give signals at intersections unless some unusual condition exists which would make such signaling necessary as precautionary measure; and mere presence of another vehicle does not constitute such unusual condition requiring signal.

In the dissenting opinion for Toledo Railways & Light Company v. Hill et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against the railway company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in how the trial had been conducted, which should have led to a reversal of judgment. They pointed out that evidence presented by both parties during litigation did not conclusively prove negligence on part of Toledo Railways & Light Company leading to Kirk’s death and thus, they disagreed with imposing liability on them based solely on presumptions or probabilities rather than concrete proof. Furthermore, they contended that instructions given to jury regarding 'last clear chance' doctrine were misleading and confusing as well as inconsistent with established legal principles thereby denying fair trial rights of defendant company.