In Chapman v. County of Douglas, 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 plaintiff, Chapman, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the county. The county had been aware of the bridge's condition, but had failed to repair it. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that it had breached that duty by failing to repair the bridge. The Court also held that the county was liable for the damages even though it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Court's decision established that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if the county was not negligent in constructing the bridge. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chapman v. County of Douglas, arguing that the majority's decision was an unjustified expansion of federal power over state governments. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing citizens to sue states for damages caused by their officers or agents, and thus any such suit should be dismissed as unconstitutional. Furthermore, he noted that even if Congress did have this authority, it would not apply in this case because the plaintiff had failed to show any violation of his constitutional rights by the defendant county officials. Justice Field concluded that since there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of those officials, they were entitled to immunity from liability under both state and federal law and therefore could not be held liable for damages sought by the plaintiff.