In the case of West et al. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore, 1934, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a telephone company could be held liable for damages caused by an employee's negligence while on duty. The plaintiffs were injured when their vehicle collided with a truck owned by the defendant and driven by one of its employees who was performing his duties at that time. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that under Maryland law, employers are not responsible for their employees' actions outside their scope of employment. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upon appeal. It found that since the employee was acting within his scope of employment during the accident - he had been driving to repair phone lines as part of his job - it would be unjust to absolve employers from liability in such cases where they have control over and benefit from their workers' activities. This ruling set a precedent for employer liability in situations where an employee causes harm or damage while carrying out work-related tasks.

The dissenting opinion in the case of West et al. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore argued that the majority's decision to uphold Maryland's law requiring telephone companies to provide service at a fixed rate was incorrect and violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters believed that this regulation amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, as it forced private businesses into providing services below cost, thereby causing them financial harm. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing that while public utilities may be regulated for public benefit, they should not be compelled to operate at a loss or subsidize certain customers' usage through artificially low rates set by state authorities.