In the case of Stone v. Southern Illinois and Missouri Bridge Company, 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Southern Illinois and Missouri Bridge Company. The plaintiff, Mr. Stone had sued for damages after his steamboat collided with a bridge owned by the company on Mississippi River causing significant damage to his vessel. He argued that the bridge was an obstruction to navigation as it did not meet statutory height requirements set by Congress under its Commerce Clause powers. However, evidence showed that at high water levels (which were present during this incident), there was sufficient clearance for vessels like Stone's steamboat to pass safely underneath without collision if navigated properly. The court held that while Congress has power over interstate commerce including navigation on inter-state rivers such as Mississippi River; it does not mean every structure built across these waters is automatically an illegal obstruction unless proven otherwise through proper legal procedures or legislative action from Congress itself declaring so. Therefore since no such declaration existed against this particular bridge; despite being lower than recommended heights in some parts due to riverbed changes post construction - it could not be considered unlawful per se nor liable for accidents caused primarily due to negligent navigation rather than structural deficiencies.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stone v. Southern Illinois and Missouri Bridge Company argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions made by the court regarding similar cases. The dissenters believed that there was no legal basis for holding a corporation liable for damages caused by an employee who acted outside of their scope of employment, especially when such actions were not authorized or condoned by the company. They contended that it is unjust to hold employers responsible for unforeseeable acts committed independently by their employees without any connection to their job duties or responsibilities. This view emphasized on individual responsibility over corporate liability, arguing against extending employer accountability beyond reasonable limits set forth in existing laws and precedents.