In the case of Fullinwider v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company of California et al., 1918, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Southern Pacific Railroad Company. The plaintiff, Fullinwider, had sued for damages after a fire spread from the defendant's property to his own due to sparks emitted by one of their locomotives. However, it was found that there were no federal laws or regulations requiring spark arresters on locomotives at that time and thus no negligence could be attributed to the railroad company under federal law. Furthermore, state laws regarding this matter were deemed irrelevant as they conflicted with interstate commerce rules which fell under federal jurisdiction.

The dissenting opinion in the Fullinwider v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of fairness. The dissenters believed that the railroad company should be held liable for damages caused by a fire, which started from sparks emitted by one of its locomotives. They contended that it was irrelevant whether or not the company had been negligent; what mattered was that its actions directly resulted in harm to another party's property. In their view, this constituted an invasion of private rights for which compensation should be provided under law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of California state laws regarding liability for fires caused by railroads, arguing instead these laws were intended to protect property owners from such damage without requiring them to prove negligence on part of railway companies.