Goetz v. Bank of Kansas City was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The case arose when the plaintiff, Goetz, sued the Bank of Kansas City for damages resulting from the bank's negligence in failing to properly investigate a loan application. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, and that the bank had failed to do so in this case. The Court also held that the bank was liable for the negligence of its employees because it had a duty to supervise and control their activities. The Court's decision in this case established that banks can be held liable for the negligence of their employees. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Goetz v. Bank of Kansas City, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that a contract between two parties is binding on both sides, even if one party does not receive full value for their performance under it. In this case, he believed that Goetz had performed his part of the agreement by delivering goods to the bank as agreed upon and thus deserved payment from them regardless of any other circumstances or agreements made with third parties regarding those goods. Furthermore, Justice Field contended that since there was no evidence presented at trial showing fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party when entering into their original contract together, then they were both bound to fulfill its terms according to its plain language without regard for any subsequent events which may have occurred after it was signed. Therefore, he concluded that Goetz should have been awarded damages from the bank due to their breach of said contract despite any claims made against him by third-party creditors who held liens over his property which had been used as collateral for securing loans taken out with them prior to delivery being made by him under his agreement with Bank Of Kansas City