Coddington v. Railroad Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a collision between two of its trains. The plaintiff, Coddington, was a passenger on one of the trains and was injured in the collision. He sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in its operation of the trains. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court found that the company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had breached this duty by failing to take proper precautions to prevent the collision. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages caused by the collision, even though the collision was caused by the negligence of the engineer of one of the trains. The Court's decision in Coddington v. Railroad Company established that railroad companies are liable for damages caused by collisions between their trains, even if the collision was caused by the negligence of one of the engineers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railroad companies and their liability for damages caused by collisions.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Coddington v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important facts of the case. He argued that under Illinois state law, a railroad company was not liable for damages caused by its negligence unless it had been given notice of any defects or dangers on its property prior to an accident occurring. In this case, there was no evidence presented at trial showing that such notice had been provided; thus, Justice Field believed that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the defendant railroad company as they were not liable for damages due to their lack of knowledge about any potential hazards on their property. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been some form of notification from plaintiff Coddington regarding his injury-causing incident with a switchman employed by defendant Railroad Company - which he denied - it would still be insufficient proof against them since they could not be held responsible for every act committed by each employee working within their organization. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent stating “the court has gone beyond what is necessary to sustain [plaintiff’s] claim” and urged reversal of judgement in favor of defendant Railroad Company