In the case of Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. v. James T. Soutter, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by an employee’s negligence while operating a train on its tracks. The plaintiff, Soutter, had been injured when his horse and wagon were struck by one of the defendant's trains as he attempted to cross their tracks at an intersection in Wisconsin. He argued that since it was foreseeable that people would attempt to cross at this intersection, the railroad should have taken steps to protect them from harm due to negligent operation of their trains; however, they failed do so and thus should be held liable for his injuries and resulting damages. The court found in favor of Soutter ruling that railroads owe a duty not only towards passengers but also those who may come into contact with their operations such as pedestrians or other travelers crossing intersections along its route; therefore if they fail in this duty then they can indeed be held responsible for any resulting damage or injury caused by their employees' negligence while operating trains on its trackways

In the dissenting opinion of Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. v. James T. Soutter, Justice Nelson argued that the majority had failed to consider a key point in their decision: whether or not the railroad company was liable for damages caused by its negligence when it ran over and killed Mr. Soutter's horse while crossing a bridge owned by the company. He argued that since there were no signs warning travelers of potential danger on this particular bridge, and since it was known to be dangerous due to its narrow width, then surely liability should fall upon those responsible for maintaining it - namely, the railroad company itself. Furthermore, he noted that if such an incident occurred today with modern technology available at our disposal (such as guard rails), then certainly some form of compensation would be owed to Mr Soutter's family in order to make them whole again after suffering such a tragic loss; thus implying that similar considerations should have been taken into account during this case as well given all relevant circumstances present at time of occurrence.