Broughton v. Pensacola was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective sidewalk. The plaintiff, Broughton, had been injured when he tripped and fell on a sidewalk in Pensacola, Florida. He sued the city for damages, claiming that the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition and that the city had failed to maintain it properly. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective sidewalk. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also noted that the city had a duty to warn pedestrians of any dangerous conditions on the sidewalk. The Court concluded that the city was liable for Broughton's injuries and awarded him damages. This case established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective sidewalks and that they have a duty to maintain them in a safe condition and to warn pedestrians of any dangerous conditions.

In Broughton v. Pensacola, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that allowed for the seizure of property in order to build a public road was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not unconstitutional because it did not violate any fundamental rights or principles of justice and fairness. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that the ordinance violated due process by allowing for private property to be taken without just compensation and without an opportunity for judicial review prior to taking possession of said property. He argued further that such an action constituted a deprivation of liberty as well as property since individuals were being deprived access to their own land without sufficient cause or justification. Ultimately, he concluded that while cities have broad authority when exercising police power over its citizens, they must still adhere to basic standards of justice and fairness when doing so; otherwise they risk infringing upon individual liberties protected under the Constitution.