James v. Milwaukee 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, James, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been negligently constructed by the city of Milwaukee. The Court held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the bridge, as it had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, as it was a public highway and the city had a duty to ensure that it was safe for public use. The Court also noted that the city had a duty to inspect the bridge and take corrective action if necessary. The Court held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the bridge, as it had failed to fulfill its duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition. The Court's decision in James v. Milwaukee established that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to establish the principle that municipalities have a duty to maintain public highways in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in James v. Milwaukee, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a municipality should not be allowed to escape its obligations under contract law simply because it is a public body. The city of Milwaukee had contracted with plaintiff William B. James for certain services, but then refused to pay him after he completed them on the grounds that they were unauthorized by ordinance or statute; Justice Field disagreed with this position, noting that even if there was no specific authorization from an ordinance or statute, such contracts could still be enforced against municipalities as long as they did not conflict with existing laws or ordinances at the time of their formation. Furthermore, he noted that allowing cities and townships to avoid contractual obligations would lead to chaos and uncertainty in business dealings between private parties and municipal governments alike - something which should be avoided whenever possible given its potential negative effects on commerce within a state or region.