Stow v. Chicago was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Stow, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge in Chicago. Stow sued the city for damages, arguing that the city was negligent in maintaining the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that the city had breached that duty by failing to repair the bridge. The Court also held that the city was liable for Stow's injuries, even though the city had not been aware of the defect in the bridge. The Court's decision in Stow v. Chicago established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to support the idea that cities have a duty to maintain public infrastructure in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stow v. Chicago, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted the city's charter and failed to consider its implications for other municipalities across Illinois. He argued that while it was true that a municipality could not be held liable for damages caused by negligence of its officers or agents, this did not mean they were immune from all liability; rather, he believed there should be some form of accountability when an individual suffered harm due to their actions. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if cities were allowed to escape responsibility in such cases then individuals would have no recourse against them and thus suffer injustice without any remedy available. Finally, he concluded by noting how allowing such immunity would create a dangerous precedent which could lead to further injustices being committed with impunity throughout the state of Illinois.