Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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, Buttz, was a farmer whose property was destroyed by the fire. He sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in allowing sparks from its locomotive to escape 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 company had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent sparks from its locomotives from starting fires, and that it had failed to do so. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages even though it had not been negligent in the operation of its locomotive. The Court's decision established that railroad companies have a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent fires from being started by sparks from their locomotives. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving similar issues.

In Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures on its property. The majority opinion found that the railroad had no duty of care towards trespassers and thus could not be held liable for any injuries they suffered while trespassing on their property. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it should have been up to a jury to determine if the railroad had acted negligently or not. He argued that since there were facts which showed that the railroad knew about potential dangers posed by their premises but failed to take reasonable steps necessary for preventing injury, then they should have been held accountable under common law principles of liability due to negligence. Furthermore, he noted how public policy considerations favored holding railroads responsible when people are injured as a result of their failure in providing proper safety precautions on their premises; otherwise innocent victims would suffer without any remedy available against them even though it is within reasonableness expectations for railroads companies with such large properties and resources at hand do more than what was done here in order protect those who may come onto its land