Osborne v. County of Adams was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Osborne, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the county. Osborne sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for the defective bridge. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that the county had breached that duty by failing to inspect and repair the bridge. The Court also held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge, even though the county had not been negligent in its construction or maintenance of the bridge. The Court's decision in Osborne v. County of Adams established that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if the county was not negligent in its construction or maintenance of the bridge. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the liability of counties for damages caused by defective bridges.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Osborne v. County of Adams, arguing that the Court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska. He argued that under state law, a county was authorized to issue bonds for public works projects and levy taxes to pay off those bonds; therefore, it did not matter whether or not there had been an election approving such action as long as it was within legal bounds. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were irregularities in how this particular bond issuance took place (such as failing to hold an election), they could be remedied by holding another election at some point in time so long as no one suffered any harm from these irregularities. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted that since no one had been harmed by any alleged irregularity here and since counties are allowed to issue bonds without elections under state law anyway, reversing the decision of Nebraska's highest court was unnecessary and inappropriate.