This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Western Railroad Company and the plaintiff, Seymour. Seymour had been hired by the railroad company to work as a brakeman and was injured while on the job. He sued the company for damages, claiming that the company had been negligent in providing him with a safe working environment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seymour, finding that the railroad company had been negligent in its duty to provide a safe working environment. The Court held that the company had failed to provide Seymour with proper safety equipment and had failed to properly train him in the use of the equipment. The Court also found that the company had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Seymour from the risks of his job. The Court awarded Seymour damages for his injuries, as well as for the pain and suffering he had endured. This case established the principle that employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment for their employees and that they can be held liable for any injuries that occur as a result of their negligence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Seymour v. Western Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was an incorrect interpretation of the law and would lead to unjust results. He argued that when a railroad company is granted a right-of-way by Congress, it does not acquire any additional rights beyond those expressly stated in its charter or grant from Congress. In this case, he noted that there were no express terms granting the defendant exclusive use of its right-of-way; therefore, Justice Field concluded that allowing other railroads to use it did not constitute an infringement on their property rights as asserted by plaintiff. Furthermore, he argued that if such exclusive privileges had been intended they should have been clearly expressed in either the original charter or subsequent acts of Congress authorizing construction along certain routes and providing for compensation for damages caused thereby. As such, Justice Field believed there was insufficient evidence to support plaintiff's claim and thus found against them on all counts.