Tuttle v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Tuttle, was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant, the Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway. The train derailed, causing Tuttle to suffer serious injuries. Tuttle sued the railroad company, claiming that the accident was caused by the negligence of the railroad's employees. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court found that the railroad had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains, and that the railroad had breached this duty by failing to properly maintain the tracks and equipment. The Court also held that the railroad was liable for the negligence of its employees, as it had a duty to ensure that its employees were properly trained and supervised. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the train accident, as it had failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of its trains and had failed to properly train and supervise its employees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Tuttle v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway. He argued that the majority's decision was based on a misapplication of Michigan law to this case, which involved an injury sustained by Tuttle while he was working for the railway company as a brakeman. Justice Field noted that under Michigan law, employers were liable for injuries caused by their negligence or carelessness even if they had taken reasonable precautions against such accidents occurring; however, in this case there was no evidence of any negligence or carelessness on behalf of the employer. Furthermore, Justice Field pointed out that since it could not be proven whether or not Tuttle had assumed some risk when taking up his employment with the railway company - something which would have been necessary to establish contributory negligence - then it should be presumed he did not assume any risk at all and thus his claim should stand regardless of what other factors may have contributed to his accident and subsequent injury. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that due to these facts being overlooked by both parties during trial proceedings as well as its misapplication of state laws regarding employer liability for employee injuries resulting from their own negligence or carelessness, he believed justice would only be served if Tuttles' claim were allowed to proceed without further delay