Tompkins v. Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by its negligence. The plaintiff, Tompkins, was a passenger on the defendant's train when it collided with another train, resulting in Tompkins being injured. Tompkins sued the railroad company for damages, 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 its negligence. The Court reasoned 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 avoid the collision. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages caused by its negligence, regardless of whether the company was aware of the risk of a collision or not. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by its negligence. The Court reasoned 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 avoid the collision. The Court also held that the company was liable for the damages caused by its negligence, regardless of whether the company was aware of the risk of a collision or not.

Justice Harlan wrote the dissenting opinion in Tompkins v. Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent. He argued that under existing law, a railroad company could be held liable for injuries caused by its negligence even if it had not been given notice of any defect or danger on its property. The Court should have applied this principle to the case at hand and found in favor of Tompkins since he had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his injury was due to an unsafe condition created by the railway company's negligence. Justice Harlan also noted that there were other issues raised during trial which were not addressed by either party but which would have affected the outcome of this case if they had been considered; thus, he concluded, it was improper for the Court to render a judgment without considering all relevant facts and arguments from both sides.