Hackett v. Ottawa was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Hackett, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the city of Ottawa. Hackett sued the city for damages, claiming that the city was negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the city of Ottawa could be held liable for damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that it had breached that duty by failing to properly construct the bridge. The Court also held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge, even though the city had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Court's decision in Hackett v. Ottawa established that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges, even if the municipality was not negligent in constructing the bridge. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective public works.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hackett v. Ottawa, arguing that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority had ruled against this claim on two grounds: first, that there was no right to a jury trial for cases involving municipal corporations; and second, that even if such a right did exist it would not apply in this case because it involved an action for damages rather than legal relief. Justice Field disagreed with both points and argued instead that any suit brought before federal courts should be subject to constitutional protections including those provided by the Seventh Amendment which guarantees citizens' rights to have their disputes decided by juries. He further noted that while some types of actions may not require juries due to their complexity or nature (such as equity suits), this particular case involved only simple questions of fact which could easily be determined by jurors without requiring special knowledge or expertise from judges. Thus he concluded that denying Hackett his right to a jury trial violated both precedent and established law regarding civil proceedings within federal courts.