In the Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Gentry case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The dispute arose when Gentry sued for damages after his cotton crop was destroyed by a fire allegedly caused by sparks from one of the railway's locomotives. However, there was no direct evidence linking the fire to any specific train or engine owned by Texas and Pacific Railway Company. The court held that circumstantial evidence alone could not establish liability on part of the defendant unless it excluded every other reasonable hypothesis except that which sought to hold them liable for negligence causing damage. In this case, since there were several possible causes for such fires including natural ones like lightning strikes or accidental ones like passerby smokers etc., mere proximity in time and place between passage of trains and occurrence of fire did not suffice as conclusive proof against defendant’s negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Gentry, Justice Brewer argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of the law regarding damages awarded to an injured party. He contended that when a person is wrongfully injured, they are entitled to full compensation from those who caused their harm - including any potential earnings lost due to inability to work during recovery. The majority's decision had reduced Gentry's award on grounds he could have mitigated his losses by finding other employment while recovering; however, Brewer asserted this was not only unrealistic but also irrelevant as it did not change the fact that Gentry was unable to perform his regular job because of injuries inflicted upon him by negligence of another party. Thus, according to Justice Brewer’s dissenting view, victims should be fully compensated for all actual losses resulting from injury without being expected or required to mitigate these through alternative means.