In the 1903 case of Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. Jones, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones, who had sued for damages after being injured while working on a construction project managed by The Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company. The company argued that they were not liable as they had subcontracted the work to another party and thus did not have direct control over safety conditions at the site. However, it was determined that because they retained some level of supervision and control over the project, including providing materials and tools for use by workers like Jones, they could be held responsible for injuries sustained due to unsafe conditions or practices. This ruling established an important precedent regarding employer liability in situations where work is subcontracted but some degree of oversight is maintained.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. Jones argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of law. The dissent contended that a hotel guest, who is not a tenant but only has temporary possession, should be held responsible for damages caused by their negligence or misuse of property. It suggested that the court had wrongly applied principles from landlord-tenant law to this situation where they did not fit appropriately. Furthermore, it disagreed with the majority’s view on liability insurance coverage; arguing instead that such policies are meant to protect against unforeseen accidents rather than intentional misconduct or gross negligence by guests. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, hotels should have recourse against guests who cause damage due to reckless behavior.