Bennett v. Railroad Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1881. The case involved a dispute between a railroad company and a farmer, Bennett, who owned land adjacent to the railroad. Bennett had sued the railroad company for damages caused by the railroad's construction of a bridge over his land. The railroad company argued that it had the right to build the bridge under the terms of a state law that allowed railroads to construct bridges over private land. The Supreme Court held that the state law was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Court reasoned that the state law allowed the railroad to take Bennett's property without providing him with just compensation, and thus violated the Takings Clause. The Court also held that the railroad was liable for damages caused by the construction of the bridge. The Court's decision in Bennett v. Railroad Company established the principle that the government cannot take private property for public use without providing just compensation. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and remains an important part of constitutional law today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bennett v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by an act of God, such as a flood or tornado, because it is impossible to prevent them from occurring. Furthermore, he noted that if companies were held responsible for natural disasters they would have no incentive to improve their infrastructure since they could not control when these events occurred. Additionally, Justice Field pointed out that there had been no negligence on behalf of the railroad company and thus it should not be required to pay damages due to something outside its control. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that holding railroads liable for acts of God would create an unfair burden on them which was neither just nor reasonable under existing laws at the time.