In the Trailmobile Company et al. v. Whirls case of 1946, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Whirls, an employee who had been injured while working for Trailmobile Company during World War II and sought compensation under the Defense Base Act (DBA). The DBA was enacted to provide workers' compensation protection to civilian employees working outside the United States on military bases or under contract with U.S government for public works or national defense purposes. The company argued that they were not liable as their facility was not a "defense base" within the meaning of this act since it wasn't located overseas nor directly owned by U.S government but merely contracted by them. However, Justice Frankfurter delivered majority opinion stating that such interpretation would defeat Congress's intent behind enacting DBA i.e., providing comprehensive coverage to all workers engaged in activities related to national defense irrespective of location and direct ownership status.

In the dissenting opinion for Trailmobile Company et al. v. Whirls, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a judgment against Trailmobile Co., despite evidence of negligence on part of an independent contractor, set a dangerous precedent in tort law. The dissent emphasized that liability should not be imposed upon employers for acts committed by independent contractors outside their control or supervision. They contended that this ruling could lead to unjust outcomes and potentially stifle business relationships due to increased fear of legal repercussions from actions taken by third parties beyond their direct influence or authority. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "inherent danger" as applied in this case, arguing it was too broad and inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters.