In the case of Twin City Pipe Line Co. et al. v. Harding Glass Co., 1930, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harding Glass Company, affirming a lower court's decision that Twin City Pipe Line Company was liable for damages caused by an oil spill on Harding's property. The dispute arose when oil from Twin City’s pipeline leaked onto land owned by Harding Glass, causing significant damage to its glass manufacturing business operations and resulting in financial loss due to halted production and clean-up costs. Despite arguments from Twin City that they had taken all reasonable precautions against such accidents and thus should not be held responsible, the court maintained that as owner of the pipeline it bore ultimate responsibility for any harm caused by its operation regardless of fault or negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Twin City Pipe Line Co. et al. v. Harding Glass Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Twin City Pipe Line Company, which had been found liable for damages caused by an oil spill on property owned by Harding Glass Company, was incorrect and inconsistent with established legal principles regarding liability in tort law. The dissenting justices contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on the part of Twin City or its employees, as required under tort law for a finding of liability. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain facts presented during trial and believed these interpretations led to an unjust outcome in favor of Harding Glass Company.