Marye v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Marye, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. Marye was injured when the train derailed due to a broken rail. Marye sued the railroad company for damages, claiming that the company was negligent in maintaining the rail. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for Marye's injuries. The Court reasoned that the company had a duty to maintain the rail in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the company was liable for Marye's damages, even though the company had not been negligent in the operation of the train. The Court reasoned that the company was liable for the damages because it had a duty to maintain the rail in a safe condition and had breached that duty. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company was liable for Marye's injuries due to its negligence in maintaining the rail. The Court held that the company had a duty to maintain the rail in a safe condition and had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the company was liable for Marye's damages, even though the company had not been negligent in the operation of the train.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Marye v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent. He argued that under existing law, a railroad company could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence unless it had actual knowledge of the danger or should have known about it through reasonable care and diligence. The Court had previously ruled in similar cases involving railroads that they were only responsible if they knew or should have known of any dangerous conditions on their property; thus, Justice Field believed this case should follow suit. Furthermore, he noted that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating either actual knowledge or constructive notice on behalf of the defendant railroad company regarding any hazardous condition which may have caused plaintiff's injury. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that since there was insufficient proof to establish liability against defendant based upon existing legal principles governing such matters, judgment ought to be entered in favor of defendant as a matter of law.