Nemaha County v. Frank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a county employee. The case arose when a county employee, Frank, was driving a wagon owned by the county when he negligently caused an accident that resulted in damages to a third party. The third party sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for the negligence of its employee. The Supreme Court held that the county was not liable for the damages caused by its employee. The Court reasoned that the county was not liable because the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when he caused the accident. The Court further reasoned that the county was not liable because the employee was not acting on behalf of the county when he caused the accident. The Court's decision in Nemaha County v. Frank established that a county cannot be held liable for the negligence of its employees when the employees are not acting within the scope of their employment or on behalf of the county. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of governmental liability.

In Nemaha County v. Frank, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain a bridge in good repair. The majority opinion found that counties were not liable for such damages and that it would be an undue burden on them if they were required to do so. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that counties should indeed be responsible for maintaining bridges in good condition as part of their duty of care towards citizens who use those bridges. He reasoned that since the county had accepted responsibility over the bridge when it was built, it should also accept liability when something goes wrong with the structure due to lack of maintenance or other causes beyond its control. Furthermore, he noted that allowing counties immunity from such claims would create an unfair situation where individuals injured by poorly maintained roads or bridges have no recourse against local governments which are ultimately responsible for their upkeep and safety standards.