In the case of St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. Gill, 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company against a claim made by Gill for damages caused to his land due to construction work carried out by the railway company. The court held that while it was true that some damage had been done during construction, this did not constitute an unlawful seizure or taking of property under eminent domain laws as claimed by Gill because he had failed to prove any permanent injury or loss in value to his property. Furthermore, since there were no federal statutes governing such cases at that time and state law allowed railroads broad discretion in their operations including causing incidental harm during construction without liability for compensation unless permanent injury could be proven, which was not established here; therefore, Gill's claim was dismissed.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company v. Gill, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding railroad companies' liability for damages caused by their employees' negligence. He contended that it was unreasonable to hold a company liable when an employee acted outside of his scope of employment or against explicit instructions from superiors, as in this case where a switchman negligently left open a switch leading to another train colliding into it causing injury to plaintiff Gill. The justice believed that such actions were not representative of the company's operations but rather individual misconducts which should be personally accountable by those involved instead of burdening corporations unjustly with financial responsibility for every act committed by its employees regardless if they are within or beyond their assigned duties.