In St. Paul & Chicago Railway Company v. McLean, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, McLean, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train, resulting in serious injuries. McLean 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 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 company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, regardless of whether the company was aware of the risk of an accident. The Court's decision established that railroad companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their trains, and that they are liable for damages caused by accidents that occur as a result of their negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railroad companies and their liability for damages caused by accidents.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in St. Paul & Chicago Railway Company v. McLean, arguing that the majority had erred in its interpretation of a contract between two parties and was thus wrongfully depriving one party of their rights under it. The case involved an agreement between a railway company and another individual to build a bridge over certain tracks owned by the former; however, when construction began on said bridge, the railway company refused to allow it to be completed due to safety concerns regarding how close it would be built near their tracks. The majority held that this refusal did not constitute breach of contract as they believed there were no specific terms within which specified how far away from their tracks the bridge should have been constructed; however, Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that such details could reasonably be inferred from other parts of the agreement given its context - namely, he argued that since both parties agreed upon building “a suitable” bridge at all times during negotiations prior to signing off on any final document or plan for construction then surely they must have intended for some level of distance between them and whatever structure was eventually erected overtop them too? In his view then, denying either party what they thought they were getting out of this deal constituted unjust enrichment at best - if not outright fraud - so he concluded by urging reversal on appeal so as right these wrongs accordingly.