In the case of Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the Town of Vidalia v. McNeely, Administratrix (1926), a dispute arose over whether or not a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in maintaining public infrastructure. The plaintiff, Mrs. McNeely, sued the town after her husband was killed due to an unsafe bridge maintained by the town authorities. The Supreme Court ruled that municipalities are immune from liability when performing governmental functions such as maintaining roads and bridges unless there is specific statutory provision allowing for such suits against them. This ruling upheld a longstanding principle known as "sovereign immunity," which protects government entities from being sued without their consent.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the Town of Vidalia v. McNeely, it was argued that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support negligence on behalf of the town in relation to maintaining its streets. The dissenting justices believed that while unfortunate, accidents can occur without any party being at fault or negligent. They also contended that municipalities should not be held liable for every accident occurring within their jurisdiction as this would place an undue burden on them and could potentially lead to financial ruin. Furthermore, they asserted that if such liability were imposed upon towns and cities across America, it would set a dangerous precedent which could have far-reaching implications beyond just personal injury cases.