In Randall v. Baltimore and Ohio 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, Randall, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. The train derailed, causing Randall to suffer serious injuries. Randall sued the railroad company, alleging that the company was negligent in its operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for Randall's injuries. 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 that duty by failing to properly maintain the tracks. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the company had not been negligent in its operation of the train. The Court's decision in Randall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company established that a railroad company can be held liable for damages caused by a train accident, even if the company was not negligent in its operation of the train. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railroad companies and their liability for damages caused by train accidents.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Randall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided. He argued that under Maryland law, a railroad company could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence if it had taken reasonable care to prevent such an accident from occurring. The majority had found otherwise, holding that because the plaintiff had been injured as a result of the defendant’s failure to use ordinary care in constructing and maintaining its tracks, they were liable for his injuries regardless of whether or not they took reasonable precautions against them. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of Maryland law and argued that it should have been interpreted differently; he believed there was no evidence presented at trial which showed any lack of due diligence on behalf of the railroad company when constructing their tracks or maintaining them afterwards. Therefore, he concluded that under Maryland law they should not be held responsible for damages resulting from their negligence since they did take all necessary steps to avoid such accidents from happening in the first place.