Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Hart, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The train derailed, causing Hart to suffer serious injuries. Hart sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in its operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for Hart's injuries. The Court found that the company had a duty to use reasonable care in operating the train, and that it had breached that duty by failing to properly maintain the tracks and equipment. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the company had not been negligent in its operation of the train. This decision established the principle that a railroad company is liable for damages caused by its negligence, even if the company was not negligent in its operation of the train.

In Hart v. Pennsylvania 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 adequate safety measures on its premises. The majority of the court found that it could not, as there was no duty imposed upon them under common law or statute at the time of the accident. Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that while there may have been no specific statutory requirement for railroads to provide such safety measures, they had an obligation to do so based on their status as a public carrier and their responsibility towards those who used their services. He further noted that if companies were allowed to escape liability simply because there was no existing legal requirement mandating certain precautions then they would be able to act with impunity regardless of how dangerous conditions became due to their own negligence or carelessness.