In Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company v. Chicago, Pekin and Southwestern Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company had an obligation to pay damages for injuries sustained by another company’s employees while they were working on its property. The court held that when one party has control over another's workmen or premises, it is liable for any injury caused by negligence in performing such duties. In this case, the defendant railroad had exclusive control over its own tracks and equipment; therefore it was responsible for any accidents occurring thereon due to its negligence. Furthermore, since both companies were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident, federal law applied instead of state law which would have otherwise been applicable if only intrastate commerce was involved. Thus, as a result of this ruling from the highest court in America at that time period ,the plaintiff railway company received compensation from defendant railway company for their employee’s injuries incurred while working on their property .

In Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company v. Chicago, Pekin and Southwestern Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to provide adequate warning of an approaching train. The majority opinion found that the railroad company was not liable because it had acted with reasonable care under the circumstances. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were sufficient facts presented at trial which showed that the defendant had been negligent; secondly, he noted that even if no negligence could be proven in this case due to lack of evidence or other reasons, then liability should still attach as a matter of public policy so as to encourage railroads to take greater precautions when operating their trains near populated areas. In conclusion Justice Field believed that since there were sufficient facts showing possible negligence on behalf of the defendant railway company they should have been held responsible for any resulting damages regardless of whether such negligence could actually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not.