In Snow v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway 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, Snow, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train, resulting in injuries to Snow and the death of another passenger. Snow 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 company had failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the train, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the company had not been negligent in the maintenance of the train. The Court's decision in Snow v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company established that a railroad company can be held liable for damages caused by an accident, even if the company was not negligent in the maintenance of the train. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that a company can be held liable for damages caused by its negligence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Snow v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a fundamental principle of law: that when an individual has been injured by another party's negligence, they are entitled to compensation for their damages. He argued that the plaintiff had established his right to recover damages from the defendant railway company due to its negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures on its premises which resulted in injury suffered by him while he was lawfully present thereon. Justice Field further noted that even if contributory negligence were found on behalf of the plaintiff, this would not bar recovery as long as such contributory negligence did not exceed ordinary care or prudence under similar circumstances. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded that since no evidence had been presented showing any extraordinary degree of carelessness or recklessness on behalf of either party involved in this case, then both parties should be held responsible for their respective actions and thus liable for compensating each other accordingly.