In Picard v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Picard, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train, resulting in serious injuries. Picard sued the railroad company, claiming that the company was negligent in its operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court found that the railroad company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had breached this duty by failing to take proper precautions to prevent the accident. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the accident was caused by the negligence of another train operator. The Court's decision established that railroad companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their trains, and that they can be held liable for damages caused by their negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the legal principle that companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their businesses.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Picard v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result for the plaintiff. Field noted that under prior decisions of this Court, a railroad company could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence unless it had actual knowledge or notice of a dangerous condition on its property which it failed to remedy. The majority disregarded this rule and instead imposed liability based solely on constructive notice - i.e., evidence showing that there were facts from which reasonable men should have inferred danger existed - thereby creating a new standard of care for railroads operating in public places without any legislative authority or justification whatsoever. In his view, such an expansive interpretation of liability was unwarranted given Congress' exclusive power over interstate commerce matters like those at issue here; thus he concluded with strong words urging caution before departing from settled law: "It is always unsafe to depart from well-settled principles."