Barnes v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a fire that was started by sparks from one of its locomotives. The plaintiff, Barnes, was a farmer whose property was destroyed by the fire. He sued the railroad company, claiming that it was negligent in allowing sparks to escape from its locomotive and start the fire. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the fire. The Court reasoned that the railroad company had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent sparks from its locomotives from starting fires, and that it had breached this duty by failing to take such precautions. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the damages even though it had not intended to cause the fire. The Court's decision in Barnes v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway established the principle that a person or company can be held liable for damages caused by their negligence, even if they did not intend to cause the harm. This principle has been applied in many subsequent cases, and is an important part of tort law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Barnes v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that under existing laws of Wisconsin, a railroad company had an absolute right to construct its tracks across any public highway or street without being liable for damages caused by such construction unless it acted with gross negligence or willful wrong-doing. The Court had previously held this same principle applicable to other states as well; however, Justice Field noted that the majority opinion disregarded this precedent and instead applied a new rule which allowed recovery for ordinary negligence on behalf of landowners whose property is damaged during railway construction projects. In his view, this new rule would impose an undue burden upon railroads since they could not be expected to anticipate every possible consequence of their actions when constructing their lines through populated areas where land values are high and legal claims numerous. As such he concluded that the judgment should have been reversed rather than affirmed as done by the majority opinion in order to maintain consistency with prior decisions regarding similar matters involving state law questions