In the 1903 case of Eckington and Soldiers' Home Railway Co. v. McDevitt, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDevitt, a property owner who sued the railway company for damages caused by their operations near his property. The court found that although the railway had been granted permission to operate by Congress, this did not absolve them from liability for any damage they might cause to private properties during their operations. The decision upheld that while public utilities have certain rights and privileges given by law, these do not exempt them from adhering to general rules regarding nuisance and damage towards private properties or individuals.

In the dissenting opinion for Eckington and Soldiers' Home Railway Co. v. McDevitt, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a street railway company liable for injuries sustained by an individual who fell from its car due to sudden movement contradicted previous rulings on similar cases. The dissent emphasized that there was no evidence of negligence or misconduct on part of the conductor or driver in this case; rather, it seemed like an unfortunate accident caused by unforeseen circumstances such as slippery conditions due to rain. It further pointed out that holding companies responsible under these circumstances would set a dangerous precedent where they could be held accountable for any accidents regardless of their control over them, which is not only unfair but also against principles established in prior court decisions.