In the 1930 case Smith, Administratrix v. Springdale Amusement Park, Limited et al., the US Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not an amusement park could be held liable for injuries sustained by a patron while on one of its rides. The plaintiff's husband had died as a result of his injuries and she sought compensation from the park. However, the court ruled in favor of Springdale Amusement Park, stating that patrons assume some level of risk when participating in potentially dangerous activities such as amusement park rides. They concluded that it is unreasonable to hold businesses responsible for every potential harm that might come to their customers during normal use of their services or products. This ruling set important precedent regarding liability and assumption of risk in situations involving recreational activities.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, Limited argued that the majority's decision to hold the amusement park liable for injuries sustained by a patron was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was no evidence presented at trial to suggest negligence on behalf of the amusement park or its employees. They believed that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect an establishment like an amusement park, which hosts thousands of patrons daily, to guarantee absolute safety from all potential accidents or mishaps. Instead, they maintained that liability should only be established when there is clear proof of negligence or misconduct leading directly to injury. In this particular case, they felt such proof was lacking and thus disagreed with holding Springdale Amusement Park accountable for damages.