Benton County v. Rollens was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a county employee. The case arose when a county employee, Rollens, was driving a county-owned wagon and negligently caused an accident that resulted in damages to a third party. Rollens was sued for the damages, and the county was also named as a defendant. The Supreme Court held that the county could be held liable for the damages caused by Rollens. The Court reasoned that the county was responsible for the actions of its employees, and that the county was liable for the damages caused by Rollens’ negligence. The Court also noted that the county had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees, and that the county had failed to do so in this case. The Court’s decision in Benton County v. Rollens established that a county can be held liable for the negligent acts of its employees. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it has been used to support the notion that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Benton County v. Rollens, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of state law and an incorrect interpretation of federal constitutional rights. He argued that the county had no right to levy taxes against non-residents who owned land within its boundaries, as this would be a violation of their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he argued that even if such taxation were permissible under state law, it could not be enforced without violating Article I Section 10 Clause 1 which prohibits states from passing any laws impairing contracts between citizens and non-citizens alike. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed that allowing counties to tax non-resident landowners violated both federal constitutional protections and principles of comity among states; thus making it unconstitutional for them to do so.