In the 1903 case Cincinnati Street Railway Company v. Snell, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Snell. The case revolved around a dispute over whether or not an individual could sue for damages incurred due to negligence on part of a street railway company's employees while they were operating outside their regular route and schedule. The court held that even though the employee was acting beyond his prescribed duties at the time of accident, it did not absolve his employer (the railway company) from liability as long as he was still engaged in serving his employer’s business when causing injury to another person. Therefore, despite being off-route and off-schedule during operation hours, since he was still working under employment with intent to serve its purpose albeit indirectly or remotely connected thereto; hence making them liable for any injuries caused by their negligence.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cincinnati Street Railway Company v. Snell argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring street railways to maintain and repair public roads surrounding their tracks was unjustified. The dissent contended that such an obligation should not be imposed on railway companies as it is essentially a tax, which they believed was unconstitutional unless applied uniformly across all taxpayers. They also pointed out that this requirement could potentially lead to abuse by local authorities who might neglect road maintenance knowing the cost would fall upon the railway company. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential inconsistencies if other cities adopted similar ordinances with varying requirements for road upkeep around railway lines.