In Rice v. Sioux City & St. Paul 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, Rice, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train, resulting in serious injuries to Rice. Rice sued the railroad company, claiming that the company was negligent in its operation of the train. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. 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 this duty by failing to take proper precautions to prevent the accident. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the accident was caused by the negligence of another train operator. The Court's decision established that railroad companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their trains, and that they can be held liable for damages caused by their negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to establish the legal principle that companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their businesses.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Rice v. Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider all of its implications. He argued that under Iowa state law, a railroad company was not liable for damages caused by an employee's negligence unless it could be proven that they were aware of their employee’s incompetence or recklessness prior to any incident occurring. In this case, there was no evidence presented which showed such knowledge on behalf of the railroad company; thus Justice Field believed they should not have been held liable for damages incurred as a result of their employee’s actions. Furthermore, he argued that even if it could be shown that the railroad company knew about their employees' incompetence or recklessness before any incident occurred, then liability would only extend to those who had suffered actual damage from said action - something which did not occur here since none of Rice's cattle were injured during his shipment with them and he received full payment for his goods upon delivery at destination without complaint from either party involved in this transaction until after litigation began over two years later when additional charges were sought out against them by Rice himself due solely to speculation regarding potential losses incurred during transit timeframes beyond what is normally expected within industry standards (i.e., delays).