In the case of Van Dyke et al. v. Arizona Eastern Railroad Company, 1918, the plaintiffs sought damages for a fire allegedly caused by sparks from one of the defendant's locomotives which destroyed their property. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that it had been negligent or that its actions directly resulted in harm to the plaintiff’s property. It was highlighted by Justice Day delivering opinion for court majority that mere proof of fire following passage of train is not enough; there must be further evidence showing negligence on part of railway company employees or defects in equipment causing emission and escape of sparks and cinders capable starting a fire.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Dyke et al. v. Arizona Eastern Railroad Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a railroad company could not be held liable for damages caused by sparks from its locomotives setting fire to nearby property. He argued that it was reasonable to hold companies responsible for damage caused by their operations, even if they were following all safety regulations and had taken precautions against such incidents. In his view, this responsibility should extend beyond just compensating individual property owners but also include contributing towards general community protection measures like firefighting services. This would ensure businesses bear some of the costs associated with risks inherent in their activities rather than shifting them entirely onto society at large or individual victims who may lack resources to protect themselves adequately.