Washington County v. Sallinger was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Sallinger, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the county. The county argued that it was not liable for the damages because it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached this duty by failing to inspect the bridge and repair any defects. The Court also held that the county was liable for the damages even though it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Court's decision established that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if the county was not negligent in constructing the bridge. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to establish the principle that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, regardless of whether the county was negligent in constructing the bridge.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Washington County v. Sallinger, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a county could not be held liable for damages resulting from its failure to maintain public roads or bridges unless it had been given express authority by statute or contract. In this case, he noted that there was no such statutory authorization nor any contractual agreement between Washington County and Sallinger regarding maintenance of the bridge at issue in this case; therefore, he concluded that Washington County should not be held liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain it. Justice Field further argued that even if liability were imposed on counties for failing to keep their roads and bridges safe without specific legislative authorization or contractual agreement with those injured as a result of such negligence, then all other local governments would also have similar obligations imposed upon them which could lead to great financial hardship on these entities due largely through no fault of their own.