In Fairfield v. County of Gallatin, 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, Fairfield, had been injured when his wagon overturned on the bridge. He argued that the county was liable for his injuries because the bridge was in a state of disrepair and the county had failed to maintain it. The Supreme Court held that the county was not liable for Fairfield's injuries. The Court reasoned that the county had no duty to maintain the bridge, as it was not a public highway. Furthermore, the Court noted that the county had not been negligent in its maintenance of the bridge, as it had not been aware of the bridge's condition. The Court concluded that the county could not be held liable for Fairfield's injuries, as it had not been negligent in its maintenance of the bridge. The Court also noted that the county had no duty to maintain the bridge, as it was not a public highway. This decision established that a county cannot be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge unless it was negligent in its maintenance of the bridge.

In Fairfield v. County of Gallatin, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain a bridge in good repair. The majority opinion found that counties were not responsible for such damages and thus denied the plaintiff's claim. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under common law principles of liability established prior to the adoption of state constitutions, counties should be held accountable for their negligence; secondly, he contended that even if there had been no pre-existing legal precedent establishing county responsibility in such cases before state constitutions were adopted, it would still make sense to hold them liable as they are charged with maintaining public roads and bridges within their jurisdiction. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded that while states may have immunity from certain types of suits due to sovereign immunity laws or other constitutional provisions protecting them from suit without consenting thereto themselves (which is what the majority opinion relied upon), this did not extend so far as to absolve counties from all forms of liability when they fail in their duty towards citizens who suffer injury or loss because of said failure.