In the 1914 case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill, a landowner who sued the railway company for damages caused by sparks from passing trains that set fire to his property. The court held that even though there was no negligence on part of the railway company as it had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents, it could still be held liable under strict liability rules because railways are inherently dangerous operations and pose an unavoidable risk to surrounding properties. This ruling established a significant precedent in tort law regarding strict liability for damage caused by abnormally dangerous activities or conditions.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Hill, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to hold the railway company liable was incorrect. He contended that there was no negligence on part of the railway company as they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and injuries from occurring. The accident in question occurred due to an unforeseen circumstance - a sudden gust of wind blowing off a piece of tin roof onto their tracks which caused derailment - something beyond human control or prediction, thus should not be considered negligence under law. Furthermore, he emphasized that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect companies to foresee every possible danger or risk associated with their operations; instead they should only be expected to take reasonable care against foreseeable risks.