In the case of Winfree, as Administrator of Phipps v. Northern Pacific Railway Company in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an accident that occurred at a railway crossing. The plaintiff's decedent was killed when his wagon was struck by one of the defendant’s trains. The main issue revolved around whether or not there were adequate warnings at the crossing to alert travelers about incoming trains. The court found that despite some evidence suggesting negligence on part of both parties involved, it could not be definitively proven that either party had failed to exercise due care under existing circumstances and conditions during this incident. Therefore, no liability could be assigned based solely upon conjecture or speculation regarding what might have happened under different circumstances or conditions than those which actually existed at time and place where such alleged negligent act occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Winfree v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to consider important aspects of negligence law and its application in this case. The dissent emphasized that there were factual disputes about whether or not Phipps had been negligent in his actions leading up to his death, which should have precluded a directed verdict by the trial court. It also pointed out that even if Phipps had been negligent, under contributory negligence principles then applicable, such negligence would not necessarily bar recovery if the railway company was also found to be at fault. Furthermore, it disagreed with how causation was evaluated by both lower courts and believed they erred in their determination of proximate cause between defendant’s alleged breach of duty and plaintiff’s injury/death. Thus, according to this view point these issues should have gone before a jury rather than being decided as matters of law by judges alone.