Thompson v. White Water Valley Railroad Company was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the White Water Valley Railroad Company and the Thompson family over the ownership of a piece of land. The Thompsons had been living on the land for many years, but the railroad company claimed that they had acquired the land through a valid deed. The Thompsons argued that the deed was invalid because it had been obtained through fraud. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Thompsons, finding that the deed was invalid because it had been obtained through fraud. The Court held that the railroad company had failed to prove that it had acquired the land in a valid manner. The Court also held that the Thompsons had a valid claim to the land, as they had been living on it for many years. This decision established the principle that a deed obtained through fraud is invalid and that a party who has been living on the land for a long period of time has a valid claim to it.

In the dissenting opinion of Thompson v. White Water Valley Railroad Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority’s decision was in error and should be reversed. He believed that under Indiana law, a railroad company could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence unless it had actual knowledge of an unsafe condition on its property or had been warned about such a condition. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the railroad company knew or should have known about any dangerous conditions on their property prior to the accident occurring; therefore they could not be held liable for damages resulting from said accident. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some degree of negligence present in this case, it would still fall short of establishing liability since Indiana law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt before holding someone responsible for another person’s injuries due to their own carelessness or recklessness. As such, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by stating his belief that the judgment against White Water Valley Railroad Company should be reversed and remanded back to state court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant (the railroad).