In the case of Railway Company v. Sayles, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a railway company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Sayles, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train, resulting in serious injuries. Sayles sued the railway company, alleging that the company was negligent in its operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court reasoned that the railway 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 noted that the railway company had failed to provide adequate warnings to passengers about the risks of riding on the train. The Court concluded that the railway company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, and ordered the company to pay Sayles for his injuries. This case established the principle that railway companies are responsible for the safety of their passengers, and must take reasonable steps to ensure that their trains are operated safely.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Railway Company v. Sayles, 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 fair or not. In this case, he noted that the railroad company had agreed to pay Sayles for his services as an engineer on their train line and had failed to do so after he completed his duties. The majority held that since there were no specific provisions in the contract regarding payment for such services, Sayles could not recover any damages from them; however Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of the agreement because it would allow companies like railway corporations "to evade all responsibility" by failing to include details about how they will compensate employees in their contracts. Furthermore, he argued that if such contracts are allowed without penalty then employers can take advantage of workers who may lack knowledge about legal matters or have limited bargaining power when negotiating employment agreements.