In the case of Samuel Hildeburn v. Henry Turner, the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant for damages caused by his negligence in failing to properly secure and maintain a bridge over which he had been granted permission to pass with his wagon. The court found that although there was no contract between the parties, it was still incumbent upon Mr. Turner to exercise reasonable care in securing and maintaining said bridge so as not to cause injury or damage to those who used it. The court held that since Mr. Turner failed in this duty, he should be liable for any damages incurred by Mr. Hildeburn due to his negligence and awarded him $50 dollars plus costs of suit as compensation for such injuries sustained from crossing said bridge on account of its unsafe condition at time of use .

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice McLean argued that the defendant had a right to use force in order to protect his property from trespassers. He noted that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have actually committed an act of violence or threatened one in order for the defendant's actions to be justified. Instead, he argued that if there were reasonable grounds for believing such an act would occur then self-defense could be used as a defense against any potential criminal charges. Furthermore, he stated that even if there was no actual threat posed by the plaintiff at all, it did not necessarily mean that using force against him would constitute battery and assault since these are subjective matters which depend on individual circumstances and cannot always be determined with certainty. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed that under certain conditions self-defense should still apply despite any lack of evidence suggesting imminent harm or danger towards another person or their property.