In the case of Wabash Railway Company v. Elliott, 1922, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when a train operated by Wabash Railway struck and killed a man named Elliott who was walking along its tracks. His widow sued for damages under Illinois state law which allowed recovery if negligence could be proven on part of the defendant even though contributory negligence existed on part of plaintiff's decedent (Elliott). However, as per federal law at that time, no such recovery was possible if there was any degree of contributory negligence from plaintiff's side. The court held that since railways were engaged in interstate commerce and hence subject to federal regulation; it is not within power of individual states to impose liability standards different than those set by Congress through Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Therefore, Mrs.Elliott couldn't recover damages due to her husband’s own negligent act contributing towards his death.

In the dissenting opinion for Wabash Railway Company v. Elliott, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law and an overemphasis on technicalities rather than practical realities. He contended that it was unreasonable to expect railway companies to anticipate every possible accident scenario and take preventative measures accordingly. Instead, he believed that liability should be determined based on whether or not a company acted negligently in response to foreseeable risks. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on previous case law as precedent, arguing that these cases were outdated and did not reflect current societal values or technological advancements in railway safety standards.