In Railroad Company v. Pratt, 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, Pratt, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train, resulting in serious injuries to Pratt. The railroad company argued that it was not liable for the accident because it had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of its passengers. The Court held that the railroad company was liable for the accident. The Court reasoned that the railroad company had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that it had failed to do so in this case. The Court noted that the railroad company had failed to take adequate precautions to prevent the accident, such as providing adequate warning signals and ensuring that the trains were operated at a safe speed. The Court concluded that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Railroad Company v. Pratt, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to either party. In this case, he believed that the railroad company had agreed to pay Pratt for his services as an engineer and should not be allowed to avoid payment simply because they now deemed him unqualified for the job due to his age. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if such contracts were not enforced then employers would have no incentive whatsoever when hiring employees since they could always back out of their agreement without consequence once work began. As such, he concluded by stating that allowing employers like the railroad company in this case off-the-hook from their contractual obligations would lead only chaos and uncertainty in future labor agreements throughout America.