| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Wardell v. Railroad Company, 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, Wardell, was a passenger on the train when it collided with another train. Wardell was injured in the accident and sued the railroad company for damages. The Supreme Court held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident. The Court reasoned that the railroad 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 prevent the accident. The Court also held that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though the accident was caused by the negligence of the other train's engineer. The Court's decision established that railroad companies are liable for damages caused by their negligence, even if the negligence of another party contributed to the accident. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has become an important precedent in the area of railroad liability.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wardell v. Railroad Company, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the law and facts. He argued that under Missouri state law, which governed this case, an agreement between two parties to arbitrate any disputes arising from their contract must be made before or at least contemporaneously with the formation of said contract. In this case, however, there was no such agreement; instead it had been entered into after litigation had already begun over a dispute related to the original contract. Therefore Justice Field concluded that since there was no valid arbitration agreement in place when suit was filed by Wardell against Railroad Company for breach of contract then he should have been allowed his day in court rather than being denied due process as pertained by statute and precedent set forth by prior cases decided upon by both federal and state courts alike.