In Carroll County v. Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The bridge had been built by the county and was in a state of disrepair. The plaintiff, Smith, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through the bridge. The Court held that the county was not liable for the damages caused by the bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had not been negligent in constructing the bridge, and that the county had no duty to maintain the bridge. The Court also noted that the county had not been aware of the condition of the bridge prior to the accident. The Court concluded that the county was not liable for the damages caused by the bridge, and that Smith was not entitled to any compensation. The Court held that the county was not liable for the damages caused by the bridge, and that Smith was not entitled to any compensation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Carroll County v. Smith, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the law and failed to consider its implications for other cases. He argued that while it was true that a county could not be sued without its consent, this did not mean that an individual who suffered damages from a county's negligence should have no recourse whatsoever. Instead, he argued, such individuals should be able to sue either directly or through their representatives in order to receive compensation for their losses. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if counties were allowed to escape liability simply by refusing consent then they would have little incentive to act responsibly and ensure public safety; thus allowing them immunity from suit would ultimately lead to more harm than good.