In the 1902 case of Winslow v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The plaintiff, Winslow, had sued for damages after a collision between his carriage and one of the defendant's trains at a railway crossing resulted in serious injury to him and death to his wife. The court found that there was no negligence on part of the railroad company as they had given ample warning by ringing their bell continuously before reaching the crossing where accident occurred. Furthermore, it was determined that Mr. Winslow himself acted negligently by driving onto tracks without ensuring it was safe to do so despite being familiar with this particular crossing which he used daily for many years prior to incident.

In the dissenting opinion for Winslow v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence of a fellow servant contradicted established principles of law. The dissent emphasized that employers should not be held responsible for accidents caused by employees unless there is evidence of neglect in hiring or supervision on their part. It was also pointed out that this ruling could potentially lead to unjust outcomes as it would encourage employees who are injured at work through no fault of their employer, but rather due to unforeseen circumstances or actions taken by other employees, to seek damages from their employers instead of those actually responsible for causing harm.