In the 1898 case Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Joy, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Mr. Joy, who had sued for damages after a train collision resulted in personal injury. The defendant railroad company argued that they were not liable as their employee was acting outside of his employment when he caused the accident by negligently switching tracks without proper authorization or instruction from superiors. However, Justice Peckham delivered an opinion stating that employers are responsible for actions taken by employees within their general scope of duties even if specific acts are unauthorized or forbidden. This ruling established important precedent regarding employer liability for employee negligence under certain circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Joy, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was incorrect in its interpretation of both state law and federal jurisdiction. He contended that under Maryland law, a corporation could be held liable for damages caused by an employee’s negligence if it resulted from duties assigned to them by their employer. Therefore, he believed the railroad company should be held responsible for injuries sustained due to its employees' negligence while performing their jobs. Furthermore, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's assertion that there was no federal question involved in this case as it pertained directly to interstate commerce which falls under federal jurisdiction according to Article I Section 8 of U.S Constitution.