In the case of Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, Inc., et al., 1944, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a corporation could be held liable for damages caused by an employee's negligence while operating a company vehicle outside of his regular working hours and without explicit permission from the employer. The court ruled in favor of Coffman, stating that if an employee is using a company vehicle for personal use but also performs tasks related to their job during this time (in this case delivering packages), then they are acting within the scope of their employment. Therefore, employers can be held responsible for any damage or harm caused by employees under these circumstances because it is considered part of their work duties.

The dissenting opinion in the Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Coffman was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant factual errors and misinterpretations of law made by the trial court which should have been corrected on appeal. They contended that these mistakes led to an unjust outcome for Mr. Coffman who had invested his money into a business venture with Breeze Corporations, only to lose it all when they went bankrupt due to alleged fraudulent activities by its directors and officers. The dissenters felt strongly that this was not just about one man's loss but also about upholding principles of fairness and justice in business transactions where investors are often at risk from unscrupulous practices by those running corporations.