In the case of Gibson v. Lockheed Aircraft Service, Inc., 1955, the plaintiff, an employee of Lockheed Aircraft Service, sought damages for injuries sustained while working on a U.S. Air Force plane at a base in Morocco. The defendant argued that they were immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which provides immunity to government contractors performing discretionary functions on behalf of federal agencies. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Lockheed's claim to immunity and held that it could be sued by its employees for negligence causing personal injury or death during performance of their duties overseas. This decision clarified that private companies contracted by federal agencies do not share those agencies' sovereign immunities under FTCA unless explicitly stated in their contracts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gibson v. Lockheed Aircraft Service, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing an employee's claim against his employer for injuries sustained on foreign soil was incorrect. The dissent contended that American courts should have jurisdiction over such cases because they involve U.S citizens and corporations. They believed that denying this right would leave American workers abroad without legal recourse for workplace injuries or other grievances under U.S law, which could potentially expose them to unfair treatment and exploitation by their employers. Furthermore, it was suggested that if domestic laws were not applicable overseas then employees might be subject to local laws which may not provide adequate protection or compensation rights as compared with those provided by US legislation.