In the 1913 U.S. Supreme Court case Hobbs v. Head and Dowst Company, the court ruled in favor of Head and Dowst Company, a construction company that had been sued by an employee named Hobbs for negligence leading to injury on the job site. The court found that while there was indeed negligence on part of some employees which led to Mr. Hobbs' injuries, it was not due to any direct fault or neglect from management or supervisors at Head and Dowst Company itself. Therefore, under existing law at the time regarding employer liability for workplace accidents, they could not be held responsible for his injuries as he failed to prove that his injury resulted from risks beyond those ordinarily assumed in his employment contract or from negligence directly attributable to his employers.

In the dissenting opinion for Hobbs v. Head and Dowst Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a corporation liable for damages caused by an employee who was not acting within his scope of employment at the time of the incident contradicted established legal principles. The dissent emphasized that under common law, employers are only responsible for their employees' actions when they occur during work-related activities or in furtherance of company business. In this case, however, the employee had deviated from his assigned route and duties when he caused injury to another party with a company vehicle. Thus, according to traditional liability rules as understood by those in dissent, it would be inappropriate to impose responsibility on Head and Dowst Company because its worker acted outside his professional capacity during this event.