In Flower v. Detroit, the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The plaintiff, Flower, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell into a hole in the street. He sued the city of Detroit for damages, arguing that the city was negligent in maintaining the street. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the streets in a safe condition, and that it had breached this duty by failing to repair the hole in the street. The Court also held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective street, even though the city had not been aware of the defect. The Court's decision in Flower v. Detroit established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective streets. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to support the idea that cities have a duty to maintain their streets in a safe condition.

In the case of Flower v. Detroit, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the city of Detroit had not violated any constitutional rights when it refused to pay for damages caused by its negligence. He noted that while the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his losses, this did not necessarily mean that Detroit must be held liable under federal law. Instead, he argued that state laws should govern such matters and since Michigan's constitution does not provide a remedy for such cases, then no action can be taken against the city. Furthermore, Field contended that if Congress wanted to create a cause of action against municipalities like Detroit they could do so through legislation but until then there is no legal basis on which to hold them accountable in this instance.