Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The Court held that a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if the municipality had not been negligent in its construction or maintenance. The case arose when a man named Talcott was injured while crossing a bridge in the Township of Pine Grove. Talcott sued the Township, claiming that the bridge was defective and that the Township was liable for his injuries. The Township argued that it could not be held liable because it had not been negligent in its construction or maintenance of the bridge. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Township, holding that a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if the municipality had not been negligent in its construction or maintenance. The Court reasoned that a municipality has a duty to maintain its bridges in a safe condition, and that this duty extends to all persons who use the bridge, regardless of whether the municipality was negligent in its construction or maintenance. The Court's decision in Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott established that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges, even if the municipality had not been negligent in its construction or maintenance. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to establish the principle that municipalities have a duty to maintain their bridges in a safe condition.

In Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a township had the authority to levy taxes on property owned by an individual who did not reside in that township. The majority opinion held that such taxation was unconstitutional and violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unfair for townships to bear all of their own expenses while allowing non-residents to benefit from public services without paying any taxes towards them. He argued further that states have traditionally been allowed wide latitude in determining how they will tax citizens and non-citizens alike, so long as those laws are reasonable and do not violate constitutional protections against discrimination or deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In conclusion, he believed there were no grounds for finding this particular taxation scheme unconstitutional since it did not violate any fundamental principles established by either state or federal law.