Day v. Fair Haven and Westville Railway Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1892. The case involved a dispute between a railroad company and a passenger who was injured while riding on the company’s train. The passenger, Day, had purchased a ticket from the company and was injured when the train derailed. Day sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in its operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the company was liable for Day’s injuries. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to provide a safe and comfortable ride to its passengers, and that it had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the train. The Court also held that the company was liable for Day’s injuries even though Day had purchased a ticket from the company. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to provide a safe and comfortable ride to its passengers regardless of whether they had purchased a ticket or not. The decision in Day v. Fair Haven and Westville Railway Company established the principle that companies have a duty to provide a safe and comfortable ride to their passengers, and that they can be held liable for any injuries that occur as a result of their negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has become an important part of the law of negligence.

In the Supreme Court case of Day v. Fair Haven and Westville Railway Company, Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided. He believed that under Connecticut law, an employee who is injured while working on a railroad should be able to sue for damages regardless of whether or not they were employed by the railway company at the time of their injury. In his dissent, Justice Harlan noted that there was no evidence presented to suggest that this type of suit had ever been barred before in Connecticut courts and thus it would be unfair to deny employees such rights now. Furthermore, he argued that if employers are allowed to escape liability for injuries sustained by their employees due to lack of employment status then it could lead to dangerous work conditions as companies may have less incentive for providing safe workplaces since they can avoid responsibility when accidents occur. Ultimately, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent with a plea urging future courts not only consider what is legally correct but also what is morally right when making decisions regarding cases like these involving employee safety and rights