Thompson v. Riggs was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1866 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused to another person’s property due to negligence. The plaintiff, Thompson, had sued Riggs after his horse and wagon were damaged when they collided with a fence owned by Riggs. The lower court found in favor of Thompson and awarded him damages; however, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision on grounds that there was no evidence presented showing any negligence on behalf of Riggs. In its ruling, the court stated that “the law does not impose upon individuals liability for mere accidents which are unavoidable” and thus dismissed Thompson's claim against Riggs without awarding any damages. This case established an important precedent regarding personal responsibility for one's actions as it relates to civil liability under tort law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Riggs, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a clause of the Constitution and disregarded established precedent. He argued that Congress did not have authority to pass laws which interfered with state court proceedings, as it was attempting to do in this case by granting an appeal from a state court decision. Furthermore, he noted that if such appeals were allowed then there would be no limit on Congressional power over state courts and their decisions; this could lead to federal interference with matters traditionally left up to states' discretion. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that allowing Congress such broad powers would undermine both the separation of powers between branches of government and between federal and state governments enshrined within our Constitution.