In Campbell v. Laclede Gas Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a gas company was liable for damages caused by a gas explosion. The plaintiff, Campbell, had leased a building from the defendant, Laclede Gas Company, and had installed a gas meter in the building. The meter was connected to a gas main owned by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the gas main, which caused a gas explosion that damaged the plaintiff's property. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was liable for the damages caused by the explosion. The Court reasoned that the defendant had a duty to maintain the gas main in a safe condition, and that the defendant had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the gas main. The Court also held that the defendant was liable for the damages caused by the explosion, even though the plaintiff had installed the gas meter himself. The Court reasoned that the defendant had a duty to ensure that the gas main was safe, and that the defendant had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the gas main. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the defendant was liable for the damages caused by the gas explosion, and that the defendant had breached its duty to maintain the gas main in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Campbell v. Laclede Gas Company, arguing that the majority had misconstrued and misinterpreted the language of a contract between two parties. He argued that while it was true that one party could not be held liable for damages if they failed to perform their contractual obligations due to an act of God or other unforeseeable event, this did not mean that such events were completely outside of their control. Instead, he argued, these events should still be considered within the scope of foreseeable risks which both parties must take into account when entering into a contract and assessing potential liabilities. Justice Field further noted that even though there may have been some ambiguity in how certain terms were used in the agreement between Campbell and Laclede Gas Company, this did not necessarily absolve either party from liability since each had agreed to accept any losses resulting from unforeseen circumstances as part of their contractual arrangement.