In Utah & Northern Railway v. Fisher, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a railroad company was liable for damages caused by a train accident. The plaintiff, Fisher, was a passenger on the train when it derailed, causing him to suffer serious injuries. Fisher sued the railroad company, 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 the accident. The Court found 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 properly maintain the tracks and equipment. The Court also held that the company was liable for the injuries suffered by Fisher, as it was foreseeable that an accident could occur if the company failed to exercise reasonable care. The Court's decision established that railroad companies have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their trains, and that they can be held liable for damages caused by accidents that occur as a result of their negligence. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving railroad companies and their liability for accidents.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Utah & Northern Railway v. Fisher, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the contract between the parties. He argued that under common law principles, it is well established that when an agreement does not specify a time for performance, then either party may demand performance at any reasonable time and if one party fails to perform within such reasonable period after being requested to do so by another party, they are liable for damages resulting from their failure to comply with their contractual obligations. In this case, Justice Field argued that there was no evidence presented as to what constituted a "reasonable" amount of time before which plaintiff could have demanded performance from defendant; thus he concluded that since plaintiff had not specified any particular date or period of time upon which defendant must perform its obligations under the contract prior to filing suit against them for breach thereof, they were entitled only nominal damages due to lack of proof as to how much actual damage resulted from defendant's non-performance.