In the case of Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company, 1912, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a lower court had erred in its decision to dismiss a suit brought by William H. Baxter against Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company for damages resulting from an injury he sustained while working on one of their boats. The primary issue at hand was whether or not the boat upon which Baxter worked and got injured could be considered as being involved in interstate commerce under federal law, thereby making it subject to federal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that even though the boat did occasionally transport goods across state lines (from Minnesota to Wisconsin), it primarily operated within Minnesota waters and thus should not be classified as engaging in interstate commerce under federal law. Therefore, they upheld the lower court's dismissal of Baxter’s suit on grounds that his claim fell outside of its jurisdiction since it didn't involve interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company case argued that the plaintiff, Baxter, should not be held responsible for damages incurred during a collision between his vehicle and one owned by the defendant company. The justice contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on Baxter's part as he had taken reasonable precautions to avoid an accident. He further asserted that it was unfair to hold him accountable for unforeseeable circumstances such as sudden mechanical failure or unexpected road conditions which could have contributed to the incident. Therefore, he believed that this ruling set a dangerous precedent of holding individuals liable without clear proof of their culpability.