In the case of DeVries et al. v. Baumgartner's Electric Construction Co., 1958, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over an electrical contract for a housing project in North Dakota. The plaintiffs, DeVries and others, were subcontractors who had completed their work but hadn't been paid by the main contractor due to bankruptcy. They filed suit against Baumgartner's Electric Construction Company (the defendant), which had provided payment bonds for the project as required by state law. The key issue was whether these bonds could be used to pay off debts owed to subcontractors like DeVries when there wasn't enough money left from the original contract payments due to insolvency of primary contractor. The court ruled in favor of DeVries and other subcontractors stating that they are entitled to recover under such bond even though they did not have direct contractual relations with surety company providing it.

The dissenting opinion in the DeVries v. Baumgartner's Electric Construction Co. case argued that the majority had erred by not considering whether or not there was a "substantial factor" contributing to the injury, which is an essential element of causation in negligence cases. The dissent believed that even if Baumgartner's Electric Construction Company were negligent for leaving a hole uncovered, this did not necessarily mean they caused Mr. DeVries' injuries because he could have fallen into it regardless of its condition due to his intoxication at the time of accident. They also disagreed with imposing liability on Baumgartner’s company when another party (the bar) may have been more directly responsible for Mr.DeVries’ intoxicated state and subsequent fall into the hole left by Baumgartner’s workmen.