In the 1895 case of Cowley v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Northern Pacific Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Cowley, had sued for damages after a fire allegedly started by one of the company's locomotives destroyed his property. However, there was no direct evidence linking the railroad to this specific fire; instead it was based on circumstantial evidence that fires were common along railway lines due to sparks from passing trains and that other fires had occurred around that time near where their trains passed. The court held that while circumstantial evidence can be used in such cases if strong enough to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than guilt of a defendant; here it wasn't sufficient as it didn't rule out all possible causes beyond those attributed to negligence by Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Therefore they couldn't be held liable solely because their operations involved some risk or danger which could cause similar accidents.

In the dissenting opinion for Cowley v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of liability. He contended that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by fires started unintentionally through ordinary operations, unless negligence can be proven. Brewer believed this case was about more than just one plaintiff's loss; it concerned all property owners along every railway line who could potentially claim damages from such incidents without needing to prove negligence on part of the railroad companies. This would place an undue burden on these companies and disrupt their operations significantly. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies with previous rulings where railroads were not found liable under similar circumstances due to lack of proof regarding negligence or intent to harm.