In City of Memphis v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The plaintiff, Brown, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell into a hole in the street. The city had been aware of the defect for some time, but had failed to repair it. The Court held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective street. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain its streets in a safe condition, and that it had breached this duty by failing to repair the defect. The Court also held that the city was liable even though it had not been negligent in failing to repair the defect. The Court's decision established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective streets, even if the city was not negligent in failing to repair the defect. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that cities have a duty to maintain their streets in a safe condition.

Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion in City of Memphis v. Brown, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a city should not be held liable for damages caused by its employees if it had no knowledge or control over their actions. The Court had previously ruled in similar cases that cities were only responsible when they knew or could have known about an employee’s wrongful conduct, but this ruling did not take into account those circumstances. Justice Field further contended that allowing such liability would place an undue burden on municipalities and discourage them from hiring competent workers who might otherwise be willing to serve the public good without fear of personal financial loss due to negligence claims against them. Finally, he noted how other jurisdictions had adopted different standards which allowed for more flexibility in determining municipal responsibility than what was being proposed by the majority opinion here; thus, he concluded his dissent with a call for greater consideration of these alternative approaches before imposing strict liability on cities like Memphis as suggested by the majority's ruling.