In the 1899 case of Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company v. Bell, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bell, a landowner who sued the railroad company for damages caused by fires that started from sparks emitted by its locomotives. The court held that even though railroads are not insurers against accidental fires, they have an obligation to use reasonable care and skill to prevent them. This includes using available technology such as spark arresters on their engines which could minimize fire risks. In this case, it was found that the railroad company had failed to take these precautions leading to damage on Bell's property hence were liable for negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company v. Bell, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railroad company liable for damages due to a fire caused by sparks from its locomotive was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence proving negligence on part of the railroad company. They contended that railroads are not insurers against all accidents resulting from their operations, but only those which occur through some fault or neglect on their part. In this case, they felt it had not been clearly established whether precautions could have reasonably prevented such an accident or if any failure in duty directly led to harm suffered by Bell’s property. Therefore, according to them, liability should not be imposed without clear proof of negligence causing damage.