Dumont v. Des Moines Valley Railroad Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between the Des Moines Valley Railroad Company and the plaintiff, John Dumont. Dumont had been employed by the railroad company as a brakeman and was injured while on the job. He sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in providing a safe working environment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dumont, finding that the railroad company had been negligent in providing a safe working environment. The Court held that the company had a duty to provide a safe working environment for its employees and that it had failed to do so. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages suffered by Dumont as a result of its negligence. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of the law of workplace safety.

In Dumont v. Des Moines Valley Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide sufficient brakes on one of its cars. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that while it is true that railroads owe a duty of care towards their passengers and must take reasonable steps to ensure their safety, this case did not involve any breach of such duty or negligence on behalf of the defendant railroad company. He argued that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed that the car had insufficient brakes or any other defect which would have made it unsafe for use; rather, he concluded that even if there were some defects present in the car's brake system they were not so substantial as to make them unreasonably dangerous and thus render them unfit for service. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that since all parties involved agreed upon an amount as compensation prior to trial - with both sides having knowledge of all relevant facts - then this should be taken into consideration when determining liability in this case. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that under these circumstances no liability should attach against either party due solely upon allegations of negligence without proof thereof being offered at trial