Hinckley v. 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 collision between two of its trains. The plaintiff, Hinckley, was a passenger on one of the trains and was injured in the collision. He sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in its operation of the trains. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the collision. The Court found that the company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had breached this duty by failing to take proper precautions to prevent the collision. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages caused by the collision, even though the company had not been negligent in its operation of the trains. The Court's decision in Hinckley v. Railroad Company established that a railroad company can be held liable for damages caused by a collision between two of its trains, even if the company was not negligent in its operation of the trains. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railroad companies and their liability for damages caused by collisions.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hinckley v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a railroad company should not be held liable for damages caused by its employees' negligence unless it had knowledge of or participated in their actions. The plaintiff had alleged that an employee of the defendant railroad company negligently operated a locomotive which caused injury to his property; however, there was no evidence presented at trial showing any participation on behalf of the defendant in this incident. Justice Field contended that under these circumstances, holding the defendant liable would be unjust and would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar facts. Furthermore, he noted that if liability were imposed without proof of fault or knowledge on behalf of the defendant then "the public service corporations will become insurers against all losses arising from accidents." Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by asserting his belief that such an outcome would be unfair and unwarranted given existing legal principles governing tort liability at common law.