In the case of Maynard v. Durham & Southern Railway Co., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over damages caused by a fire that started from sparks emitted by one of Durham & Southern Railway's locomotives. The plaintiff, Maynard, claimed that his timber and land were destroyed as a result of this fire. However, the railway company argued they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an incident and should not be held liable for uncontrollable circumstances. The court ruled in favor of Maynard stating that despite taking precautions if damage is done due to their operations then it becomes their responsibility to compensate for those damages under North Carolina law which imposes strict liability on railroads causing fires regardless of negligence or fault.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Maynard v. Durham & Southern Railway Co., argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply federal law, specifically the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The dissent believed that FELA was designed to shift some of the inherent risks of railway work from employees to their employers, thereby promoting safety within this hazardous industry. They contended that by ruling in favor of Durham & Southern Railway Co., despite evidence suggesting negligence on their part contributing to Maynard's injury, they were undermining this key purpose behind FELA. Furthermore, they disagreed with how causation had been determined in this case - arguing it should be enough for an employee’s injury to have resulted “in whole or in part” from employer negligence under FELA. Thus, according them even if other factors contributed towards Maynard's accident, as long as there was any degree of employer negligence involved then liability should fall upon Durham & Southern Railway Co.