In the case of Collins et al. v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Collins, sued for damages after they were injured in a car accident within Yosemite National Park caused by an employee of the defendant company, Yosemite Park & Curry Co., who was driving recklessly while on duty. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants based on their interpretation of two federal statutes: one that granted exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over civil suits arising from incidents occurring within national parks; and another that exempted contractors operating within these parks from liability for actions taken during performance of their duties unless gross negligence could be proven. The court held that since no gross negligence had been established against the driver or his employer, they couldn't be held liable under this statute's provisions despite being responsible for causing injury through reckless driving behavior which would normally constitute actionable negligence under state law outside park boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Collins et al. v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's ruling that a concessionaire in a national park was not an agent of the federal government and therefore could be sued under state law. He argued that because the concessionaire operated under strict governmental control, it should be considered an arm of the government and thus immune from such lawsuits. He also noted that this interpretation would better align with Congress' intent to keep national parks "free from any taint or suspicion of commercialism." Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in previous court decisions regarding similar issues, arguing for more clarity and consistency in how these cases are decided.