In Howell v. Western Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Howell, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train. He was injured in the accident and sued the railroad company for damages. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court reasoned that the railroad 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 accident. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the accident was caused by the negligence of another train's engineer. The Court's decision in Howell v. Western Railroad Company established that railroad companies are liable for damages caused by their negligence, even if the negligence of another party contributed to the accident. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railroad companies and their liability for damages caused by their negligence.

Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion in Howell v. Western Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that under Missouri law, a railroad company had no right to take possession of land without first paying for it or obtaining permission from its owner. The majority held that since the railroad company had been granted a charter by Congress which authorized them to construct their railway across any lands they deemed necessary, they were not required to pay for or obtain permission from landowners before taking possession of their property. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and argued instead that while Congress could grant charters allowing railroads access over private lands, such grants did not exempt companies from state laws requiring payment for use of those lands; rather he believed these two powers operated concurrently so as long as both conditions were met then construction could proceed lawfully. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his position that Missouri law must be respected and upheld in order for justice to prevail in this case - thus reversing the majority's ruling on behalf of Howell against Western Railroad Company