In the case of Hill v. Chicago and Evanston Railroad Company, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, The Chicago and Evanston Railroad Company. Plaintiff William B. Hill had sued for damages after his property was allegedly devalued due to noise and smoke caused by trains operated by the railroad company. However, it was found that when he purchased his property in 1881, there were already train tracks nearby which were being used regularly; hence he should have been aware of any potential nuisance from railway operations at that time. Therefore, according to common law principles regarding pre-existing conditions on a property at time of purchase (coming-to-the-nuisance doctrine), Mr.Hill could not claim damages as he effectively "came to the nuisance" rather than it coming to him post-purchase.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill v. Chicago and Evanston Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a railroad company liable for damages caused by its employees' negligence could set a dangerous precedent. The dissenting justices believed that while employers should be responsible for their own actions, they should not necessarily be held accountable for those of their employees unless it can be proven that they were negligent in hiring or supervising them. They also expressed concern about the potential impact on businesses, suggesting that such rulings could discourage companies from taking risks or investing in new ventures due to fear of legal repercussions if an employee makes a mistake. Furthermore, they questioned whether this ruling would unfairly penalize companies with many employees since these firms are statistically more likely to have at least one worker who acts negligently.