In the case of Offield v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company in 1906, the plaintiff sued for damages after a railroad accident caused by alleged negligence on part of the defendant's employees. The Supreme Court ruled that under Connecticut law, where the incident occurred, an employer is not liable for injuries to an employee resulting from negligence of fellow servants engaged in common employment unless it can be shown that there was some defect or insufficiency due to its negligence in respect to things provided by it for use in carrying on its business. In this particular case, no such evidence was presented; therefore, judgment was given favoring the defendant company.

In the dissenting opinion for Offield v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the railroad company liable for damages due to a fire caused by sparks from one of its locomotives was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented in court proving beyond reasonable doubt that negligence on part of the railroad company led directly to plaintiff’s loss. They pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding where exactly they saw sparks flying off from and how far they travelled before igniting a fire. Furthermore, they contended that even if such proof existed, it would be unreasonable to expect railroads operating steam engines not to emit any sparks at all given their inherent nature; hence holding them accountable every time a spark causes damage would set an unfair precedent which could potentially cripple railway operations nationwide due to excessive litigation costs.