In the 1918 case of Withnell v. Ruecking Construction Company, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and damages incurred during construction work. The plaintiff, Withnell, owned land adjacent to where Ruecking Construction was building a sewer line for the city of Omaha in Nebraska. During this process, part of Withnell's property collapsed into the trench dug by Ruecking due to inadequate support provided by them which led to significant damage on his property including his house and barns. Withnell sued for compensation but lost at both district court level and state supreme court level as they ruled that he had no right to lateral support for his land above its natural surface when it has been artificially filled or built upon. However, on appeal before U.S Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that an owner is entitled to have their land remain in its natural state without disturbance from neighboring properties regardless if it’s artificially filled or not unless there is some law authorizing such interference.

The dissenting opinion in the Withnell v. Ruecking Construction Company case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles regarding employer liability for employee injuries. The dissent contended that an employer should not be held liable for damages if they had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure worker safety, even if an accident still occurred due to unforeseen circumstances or errors on part of the employees themselves. They believed this principle applied in this case, where a construction worker was injured by falling into a hole at night despite his employer having warned him about it earlier. The dissenters felt that holding employers responsible under such conditions would place an undue burden on them and could potentially discourage business activity due to fear of excessive litigation costs.