Hurst v. Western and Atlantic 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, Hurst, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, Western and Atlantic Railroad Company. The train derailed, causing Hurst to suffer serious injuries. Hurst sued the railroad company, claiming that the accident was caused by the company's negligence. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. 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 properly maintain the tracks. 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 the operation of the train itself. This decision established the principle that a railroad company is liable for damages caused by its negligence, even if the negligence is not directly related to the operation of the train.

In Hurst v. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company had the right to take possession of land belonging to another party without providing compensation. The majority opinion held that the railroad company did not have this right; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that under certain circumstances, it is reasonable for a corporation like a railroad company to take possession of private property without paying for it if doing so would benefit society as whole by promoting economic development or public safety. Furthermore, he asserted that in such cases where taking possession of private property is necessary for these reasons, then any damages incurred should be paid out by state governments rather than corporations themselves since they are acting on behalf of the public good when they do so.