Railroad Company v. Jackson was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1868. The case involved a dispute between the Railroad Company and Jackson, a farmer who owned land adjacent to the railroad. Jackson had sued the Railroad Company for damages caused by the construction of the railroad, claiming that the construction had caused his land to become flooded and that the flooding had caused him to suffer financial losses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jackson, finding that the Railroad Company had acted negligently in constructing the railroad and that the flooding of Jackson's land was a direct result of the Railroad Company's negligence. The Court held that the Railroad Company was liable for the damages caused by the flooding and ordered the Railroad Company to pay Jackson for his losses. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a landowner can recover damages from a railroad company for any damages caused by the construction of the railroad, even if the damages were not foreseeable at the time of construction. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of the law governing the construction of railroads.

In Railroad Company v. Jackson, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate fencing along its tracks. The majority of justices found that the company had no duty to fence their tracks and therefore could not be held liable for any resulting injuries or damage. However, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that it is within the power of states to enact laws requiring railroads to protect against foreseeable dangers posed by their operations and thus should have been responsible for providing proper fencing around their trackways. He argued that such laws are necessary as they would help prevent accidents from occurring due to lack of safety measures taken by companies operating railways through populated areas. Furthermore, he noted that if companies were allowed free reign without consequence then there would be little incentive for them take steps towards protecting public safety which may result in more harm than good being done overall.