Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Macke 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, Macke, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railway Company. Macke was injured when the train derailed due to a broken rail. Macke 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 Macke's injuries. The Court found 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 Macke's damages, even though the company had not been negligent in the actual operation of the train. 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. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Missouri Pacific Railway Company was liable for Macke's injuries due to its failure to maintain the rail in a safe condition. The Court found 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 Macke's damages, even though the company had not been negligent in the actual operation of the train.

In Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Macke, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by an employee's negligence in operating a train. The majority of the court found that the railroad company was not liable because it had no control over its employees' actions and thus could not be held responsible for their negligent behavior. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that under common law principles of agency, employers are vicariously liable for their employees’ torts when they have delegated authority to them and failed to exercise reasonable care in supervising them. He argued that since railroads employ agents with broad powers who are expected to act on behalf of the employer, they should also bear responsibility if those agents cause harm due to negligence or other wrongful acts while performing duties within their scope of employment. Thus, he concluded that railway companies should be held accountable for any injuries resulting from its employees’ negligent operation of trains regardless of whether or not it had direct control over such operations at all times.