In the 1893 U.S. Supreme Court case Metcalf v. Watertown, a dispute arose over whether or not the city of Watertown in New York was liable for damages caused by changes to a natural watercourse due to construction work carried out by the city. The plaintiff, Metcalf, claimed that his property had been damaged as a result of these alterations and sought compensation from the city. However, it was ruled that since cities have an inherent right to make necessary improvements and repairs for public welfare purposes such as drainage systems without being held accountable for unintentional consequential damage unless negligence can be proven on their part; therefore, they are not responsible for any incidental damage caused during this process unless there is proof of carelessness or neglect in carrying out these works. In this case no evidence of negligence could be found so judgment was given in favor of defendant - City Of Watertown.

In the dissenting opinion for Metcalf v. Watertown, the justice argued that a city should not be held liable for damages caused by changes in natural water flow due to public improvements unless there is proof of negligence or unskillfulness. The justice contended that it was unreasonable and unjust to hold municipalities financially responsible for unintentional consequences of necessary public works projects. He believed this would discourage cities from undertaking important infrastructure developments out of fear of potential lawsuits, which could hinder progress and negatively impact communities. Furthermore, he asserted that property owners should bear some risk when living in a community where such improvements are made as they also benefit from them.