Christian A. Zabriskie, appellant, brought a case against the Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati Railroad Company (CCC) and John A. Butler for damages caused by an accident on the CCC’s railroad line in Ohio. The accident occurred when Mr. Zabriskie was riding in a car owned by the CCC that derailed due to negligence of its employees or agents who had failed to properly maintain it or inspect it before use. In his suit, Mr. Zabriskie argued that he should be compensated for medical expenses incurred as well as pain and suffering resulting from his injuries sustained during the derailment incident because of negligence on behalf of those responsible for maintaining and inspecting the train cars at issue here - namely, either employees or agents of CCC or John A Butler himself who leased out some cars to them at times . The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Mr.Zabriskie ruling that both parties were liable under common law principles since they owed him a duty of care which they breached through their failure to adequately maintain/inspect said train cars leading up to this unfortunate event causing injury upon him..

In the dissenting opinion of Christian A. Zabriskie v. The Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati Railroad Company, Justice Grier argued that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to prove his claim for damages against the railroad company. He noted that while there was some proof of negligence on behalf of the defendants in failing to properly maintain their tracks and equipment, this alone did not constitute a breach of contract or duty owed by them to Mr. Zabriskie as he had failed to provide any evidence demonstrating an agreement between himself and the railroad company which would have imposed such a duty upon them. Furthermore, Justice Grier concluded that even if it could be established that there was indeed an agreement between Mr. Zabriskie and the defendants regarding maintenance obligations on their part towards him then they were still entitled under Ohio law at this time to reasonable notice before being held liable for any damages resulting from such neglectful behavior; no such notice having been provided here by either party prior to suit being brought against them in court meant they should be absolved from liability according to Justice Grier's interpretation of applicable legal precedent at this time period