The case of Bradford Electric Light Co., Inc. v. Clapper, 1931, revolved around the issue of whether a Vermont state law that allowed an individual to sue for damages resulting from death caused by negligence was applicable in this instance where the deceased was a resident and citizen of New Hampshire but died in Vermont due to alleged negligence on part of the defendant corporation based in Vermont. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate any constitutional rights for such laws to be applied extraterritorially (outside its territory). It held that if a wrongful act is committed within one state which results in death outside its borders, then the place where injury or damage occurs can apply their own laws regarding liability and compensation. Therefore, even though Mr.Clapper was not a resident or citizen of Vermont at his time of death, his administratrix could still file suit under local law against Bradford Electric Light Co., Inc.

In the dissenting opinion for Bradford Electric Light Co., Inc. v. Clapper, Justice Stone disagreed with the majority's decision to deny recovery to Mrs. Clapper for her husband's death due to an electrocution accident while working on a power line owned by Bradford Electric Light Company. He argued that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial showing negligence on part of the company in failing to properly insulate their high voltage wires or provide adequate warning about its dangerous condition which led directly to Mr.Clapper’s fatal injury. Justice Stone further contended that it is not unreasonable for workers like Mr.Clapper who are engaged in inherently risky occupations such as electrical work, should expect and be entitled to rely upon those responsible maintaining safety standards especially when they have superior knowledge about potential hazards involved. He also criticized the majority’s reliance on legal technicalities regarding contributory negligence and assumption of risk doctrines instead of focusing more broadly on whether employer had fulfilled its duty of care towards employee under these circumstances. Therefore, he concluded that court should have allowed jury verdict favoring Mrs.Clapper stand rather than overturning it based upon what he considered erroneous interpretation and application law by majority justices.