Root v. Railway Company is a United States Supreme Court case from 1881. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Root, and the defendant, Railway Company, over a contract for the construction of a railway. Root had contracted with the Railway Company to build the railway, but the Railway Company failed to pay Root for the work he had done. Root sued the Railway Company for breach of contract, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Railway Company was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the Railway Company had failed to pay Root for the work he had done, and that this constituted a breach of contract. The Court also held that Root was entitled to damages for the breach of contract, and that the Railway Company was liable for those damages. The decision in Root v. Railway Company established that a party who fails to fulfill its contractual obligations is liable for damages. This case is still cited today as an example of the legal principle that a party who fails to fulfill its contractual obligations is liable for damages.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Root v. Railway Company, arguing that the majority had erred in their decision to deny damages to plaintiff William Root for injuries he sustained while working on a railway owned by defendant Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company. Justice Field argued that under Illinois law, an employer was liable for any injury caused to an employee due to negligence or lack of care on behalf of the employer. He noted that it was undisputed that Mr. Root's injuries were caused by defective machinery which had been negligently maintained by the company, and thus they should be held responsible for his damages as per state law. Furthermore, Justice Field pointed out that even if there had been no statute requiring employers to provide safe working conditions, common sense dictated such a requirement; therefore employers should not be allowed to escape liability simply because there is no explicit statutory language mandating safety standards at work sites. In conclusion, Justice Field believed Mr. Root deserved compensation from Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company since his injuries were directly attributable to their negligent maintenance of equipment used in his employment with them