In Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway Company v. Dunn, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Dunn, was a passenger on the train when it derailed, causing him to suffer serious injuries. The defendant, the railroad company, argued that it was not liable for the accident because it had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of its passengers. The Court held that the railroad company was liable for the accident. The Court reasoned that the railroad company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had failed to do so in this case. The Court noted that the railroad company had failed to properly inspect the track and had failed to take other necessary safety precautions. As a result, the Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway Company v. Dunn. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. According to Justice Field, a railroad company should not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who had been warned of potential danger but chose to ignore it anyway. The Court should have applied the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (“to one who consents no injury is done”), which holds that if someone voluntarily assumes a risk then they cannot sue for damages resulting from it. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there were other cases where employees had assumed risks without any warning or instruction from their employers yet still recovered damages when injured on the job; thus he concluded that this case was distinguishable from those precedents and did not warrant liability being imposed upon the employer here either.